Presented on Selected Characterstics of Minority Persons in Houston and Parts of Harris County

DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 094 023 UD 014 334

AUTHOR Lede, Naomi W.; Dixon, Hortense W. TITLE Urban Minority Groups in Houston: Problems, Progress, and Prospects. A Statistical and Analytical Study. INSTITUTION Texas Southern Univ., Houston. Urban Resources Center. SPONS AGENCY Departm.ant of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, D.C. PUB DATE 29 Mar 73 NOTE 468p.; Charts on pages 146-163 of this document will not be clearly legible due to print size in the original

EDRS P:ICE MF-$0.75 HC-$22.20 PLUS POSTAGE DESCRIPTORS Age Groups; *City Demography; Economically

. Disadvantaged; Employment Statistics; Family Income; High School Graduates; Marital Status; *Minority Groups; Populatico Trends; Racial Distribution; Socioeconomic Status; *Statistical Analysis; *Urban Population IDENTIFIERS *Texas

ABSTRACT This document is cne of a series about the conditions of blacks and other minorities f.L. Houston, Texas. Statistics are presented on selected characterstics of minority persons in Houston and parts of Harris County. document is designed to provide data in an organized and systematic *.:ay by bringing together in one convenient source socioeconomic facts about the minority community and by keeping the document constantly up to date through more current reports. Data for the central, city and some suburban rings in close proximity to Houston proper are given when this type of distinction appears to be significant. The major areas treated in this report are: general socioeconomic characteristics, populetip.n and distribution, family and household size, education, employment and income, housing, poverty, politics, health, economic develippment statistics, and other pertinent data on minority problems and accomplishments. The preparation of the volume was guided by three major concerns: the assessment of problems; a review of progress or accomplishments in the light of civil rights legislation; and a general projection of future needs and prospects. Information in the volume is classified according to major socioeconomic and demographic areas. Also, within each area, various subtopics or subdivisiops are used.(Author/OM) BEST COPYAVAILABLE

URBAN MINORITY GROUPS IN HOUSTON:

Problems, Progress, and Prospects

A Statistical and Analytical Study

Naomi W. Led and Hortense W. Dixon

Texas Southern University

U DEPAR IMEN1 OF 11E41 T. EDUCATION NET. F AWL NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION The preparation of this report was financed, in part, from funds provided under HUD Contract No. 1709 with the Urban Resources Center in Texas Southern University by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. FOREWORD

Hortense W. Dixon Director, the Urbar Resources Center

The book which follows is a working document of the Texas

Southern University Urban Resources Center. The document, which

has grown out of an effort to develop linkages between a minority

urban university and local government, is a codification of rele-

vant data that, when viewed collectively, represents the "living

environment" of minorities in an urban area. More than that, it

is an attempt to introduce to policy ma

process -- the minority perspective.

The organization of this book follows, in a formal way, the most chronic problems of minorities during this century. There is,

however, a much deeper criticism of the linear approach that has

characterized public policy &ring this period. A careful reading of each section will suggest that the state of affairs in one area

is intricately and irrevocably related to each of the other conditions.

Tnis working document will be used by the Texas Southern

University Urban Resources Center in making PhaseI recommendation

to the University administration such program adaptations, innova-

tions, and improvements that have the potential for impacting on

iii urban problems. It is viewed, similarly, as a being replicable by other black colleges in bringing the unique resources of these institutions to bear on the quality of life in an urbanized society.

Perhaps, it will also become a useful resource for policy makers and planners in the public and private sector who share with us a sense of responsibility for the quality of life in the cities.

The Texas Southern University Urban Resources Center would appreciate responses from the people who read this document -- responses describing policy alternatives and strategies for change related to the major area presented herein.

March 29, 1973 Texas Southern Univelsity Houston, Texas

iv CONTRIBUTORS

The Urban Resources Center Staff gave invaluable aid in the completion of the document. Twenty graduate urban interns work in the URC. Several of these students collected data for specific sections of the volume. A listing of the contributors and the categories of research for data which they collected may be found below.

GENERAL SUPERVISION Kathryn A. Goode, Administrative Assistant in the Urban Resources Center, supervised and edited the complete report. She aided in the computation and statistical analysis of the data. Mrs. Goode holds a Bachelor of Arts degree, with Afro-American Studies as an area of specialization, from Smith College.

GENERAL SOCIO-ECONOMIC Alicia H. Mathis, B.A., Social Service, CHARACTERISTICS Prairie View A. and M. College.

EMPLOYMENT & POVERTY -Mrs. James M. Spigner, B.A., Elementary Education, Southern University (Baton Rouge).

INCOME - Shirley M. West, B.A., Sociology, Alcorn University; attended University of Mississippi Law School.

EDUCATION Lankford Bolling, B.A., Psychology, Bradley University.

HOUSING - Anne R. Harris, Bachelor in Music Education, Texas Southern University

HEALTH - Floyd Briscoe, B.A., History and Biology (Pre-Medical major), Texas Southern University

CRIME & POLITICS Birdie Burch, B.A., Sociology and Anthropology, Whittier College.

Regina Drake, B.A., Sociology, University of Houston. CRIMINAL JUSTICE Tremaine B. Williams, B.A., Administration of Justice, Southern Illinois University (Carbondale, Illinois).

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - Barbara Marcus, B.S., History, Boston University.

CIVIL RIGHTS - Lester Siren, B.A. History, Texas Southern University.

vi INTRODUCTION

The central purpose of this volume is to provide composite data on the minority population of Houston. We have organized the data along interdisciplinary lines in order to provide comprehensive and current information on many levels. The major sections of this report deal with general socio-economic characteristics, such as employment, population and migration, income, poverty, education and family size; housing, health, crime, economic development, politics, desegregation, and progress in civil rights for

Houston and parts of Harris County. Data on the black population is more extensive than that for the Mexican-American population.

In the latter case, only limited information is certain categories was available.

In the preparation of the volume, we were guided by three major concerns: the assessment of problems; a review of progress or accomplishments in the light of civil rights legislation; and a general projection of future needs and prospects. The combined effects of this kind of presentation (it is hoped) will provide the means through which an objective status of minority groups in

Houston can be established. What we have tried to do is to present, in statistical form, as much information as possible on Houston.

Some Facts are included for the total Standard Metropolitan

vii Statistical Area, for Texas, and the nation. In some instances, data for these categories are used for comparative purposes.

Many subjects of concern have been given brief treatment, and will be analyzed in greater, detail in subsequent reports. This is particularly true for health and crime. Explanations accompanying some of the sections are also very brief. For those interested in further details, the footnotes, sources and special references, and

Appendices should be helpful.

Much of the statistical data were drawn from the 1970 U. S.

Census Reports, abstracts and reviews of special government documents, newspaper articles, United States Department of Labor special reports, the World Almanac, court cases, and other references. Detailed definitions are given for certain items; explanatory notes are included where appropriate; and adequate references are cited for materials which did not originate with the United States Census reports.

There may be some discrepancies in the data collected from the

Uniform Crime Reports, as be for data on the crime situation in

Houston. Many individual figures do not add up to the totals, as would be expected. No explanations were given in the sources used. We assume some of the data are cumulative, particularly where central city and suburban crime rates are analyzed. Also, there is evidence that the Census Bureau (Houston Chronicle, May 8, 1973) underestimated the overall population by about three percent, with the black population undercount at 7.7 percent of the total black population. This means

viii that about 24,000 blacks were missed in the 1970 Census of Population.

Generally, a three percent differential is not considered to be as

serious as an 8 percent discrepancy, as it is with the black population

estimates. Due to this reported omission, any discrepancies between

earlier data and some of the current figures elicited from surveys

may be attributable to errors in the tabulations.

Information in the volume is classified according to major socio-

economic and demographic areas. Within each area, various sub-topics

or sub-divisions are used to categorize and emphasize particular issues when considered pertinent.

The volume represents the first in a series of reports to be

published by the Urban Resources Center in Texas Southern University.

It should not be judged as empirical research. Instead, it is a

collection of data from many sources; it is a pooling of ideas about

the problems, progress, and prospects of minority group persons in the

Houston area. We speak of black and brown communities; we included

their perceptions, attitudes, and responses to particular data items; we do not speak for these communities. The credit for whatever worth

lies in this report must go to the many individuals in the communities

and in the Urban Resources Center, who contributed to the completion

of the study. A convoy of graduate urban interns collected materials

from documentary sources and through telephone and personal interviews.

These graduate students in Sociology and Urban Community Development

were trained by some of the prestigious colleges and universities in the

nation, including a select number of predominantly black institutions.

ix For most of these students, the reseF,-ch tasks involved provided impetus to their quest for broader experiences and desires to provide expert and wholesome leadership for the black communities from which they come. We applaud these graduate students for their contribution to the volume and our sincere gratitude accompanies this recognition.

Every effort has been made to check the accuracy of all materials used, and when possible, data have been updated and corrected. Whatever errors are present, by commission or omission, are due to our inadequacies. We accept full responsibility for any mistakes that may have eluded our best efforts.

Texas Southern University Naomi W. Lede May, 1973 Director of Research CONTENTS

FOREWORD

CONTRIBUTORS

INTRODUCTION . vii

LIST OF TABLES xiii

DEFINITIONS xxii

CHAPTER ONE: GENERAL POP"ULATION CHARACTERISTICS

Pov1;.-tipm -row- -4,r=ti-n- income; poverty; subsi dy vs. welfare; employment and occupational data

CHAPTER TWO: EDUCATION AND DESEGREGATION 79

Teacher assignments; wg:thdrawals; busing versus desegregation: some research findings; progress toward desegregation; statistics on higher education and state employment by race

CHAPTER THREE: HOUSING NEEDS AND MINORITY GROUPS . 123

General characteristics of housing; discrimination in housing; low income housing; housing code enforcement

CHAPTER FOUR: HEALTH CARE AND THE BLACK POPULATION . . 165

Health needs of Houston's minorities; cost; hospital care; improvements and reco7mendations; same medically-related concerns by the black Population

CHAPTER FIVE: POLITICS AND THE MINORITY VOTER 188

CHAPTER SIX: CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND THE MINORITY COMMUNITY . 205

Race and crime; statistics on crime; national statistics on crime; dimensions of the crisis of crime; plea bargaining; attitudinal factors and law enforcement; federal criminal justice support; black lawyers

xi CHAPTER SEVEN: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: MINORITY BUSINESSES . 249

CHAPTER EIGHT: THE PROGRESS OF CIVIL RIGHTS ...... 264

Civil rights legislation; employment with the City of Houston; employment: communications media; socio-economic and political progress; political aspects of progress; the challenge ahead

APPENDICES 294

xii LIST OF TABLES

Table Page 1. General Characteristics of the Population by Region and Race, 1970 3

2. Negro Population, 1970, 1960, and 1950, for 30

Cities With the Largest Negro Population . . 6

3. Negro and Other Races Population Change and Net Migration, 1960 to 1970, for 30 Cities the Largest Negro Population: 1970 .. 7

4. Thirty Places with the Highest Proportion of

Negroes, by Rank: 1970, 1960, and 1950 . . 8

5. A Distribution of the Population by Race, Median Years of School Completed, Percent High School

Graduates, and County, 1970 . .... 10

6. School Enrollment of the Population (3-34 years) of Houston by Race, 1970 13

7. Years of School Completed by Minority Groups by Sex (Houston, 1970) 14

8. Percentage of the Population Enrolled in School by Age and County, 1970 15

9. A Distribution of Median Family Income for Forty

(40) Select Cities in the U. S., 1970 . . 17

10. Median Family Income for the Total Population in Each County and by Race, 1970 19

11. A Comparison of Annual Income by Race and by Decade with that for the County 20

12. Poverty Status of Residents of Houston by Race: 1970 23

13. Poverty Status of Residents of Houston in 1969 by Race: 1970 25 Table Page 14. Selected Demographic Characteristics from the 1970

Census for Harris County . 33

lb. Selected Demographic Characteristics from the 1970 Census for Fort Bend County 34

16. Selected Demographic Characteristics from the 1970 Census for Brazoria County 36

17. Employment Status by Ethnic Group, Age, and Sex 38

18. Employment Status of Men Aged 20-64 Years, By Marital Status and Ethnic Group 39

19. Employment Status of Women Aged 20-64 Years, By Marital Status and Ethnic Group 40

20. Employment Status of Men by Age, Educational

Attainment, and Ethnic Group . . 41

21. Employment Status of Women by Age, Educational

Attainment, and Ethnic Group . . 43

22. Unemployment During Previous Year by Ethnic Group, Age, and Sex 45

23. Employed Persons By Industry Group, Ethnic Group, Age, and Sex 46

24. Employed Persons by Occupation, Ethnic Group, Age, and Sex 47

25. Annual Money Income by Ethnic Group and Family Status in the "Original CEP Area" of the Houston Labor Market, July 1968-June 1969 50

26. Estimated Unemployment Levels and Rates in Houston SMSA and Central City Area, Annual Averages, 1967 through 1969 51

27. Employment Status by Ethnic Group, Age, and Sex in the "Original CEP Area" of the Houston Labor

Market, July 1968-June 1969 . 52

28. Unemployment Experience During Previous Year by Ethnic Group, Age, and Sex in the "Original CEP Area" of the Houston Labor Market, July 1968 - June 1969 53

xiv Table Page 29. Reasons Not Looking and Future Jobseeking Intentions of Persons Not in the Labor Force Who Want a Job Now, by Ethnic Group, in the "Original CEP Area" of the Houston Labor Market, July 1968 -June 1969 54

30. Reasons Not Looking and Future Jobseeking Intentions of Persons Not in the Labor Force Who Want a Job Now, by Ethnic Group and Sex 55

31. Weekly Earnings by Ethnic Group and Sex 56

32. Employment Characteristics of Residents of Houston by Race 1970 58

33. Employment Characteristics of the Population of Houston 1970 59

34. Employment Characteristics of the Population of Houston 1970 60

35. National Unemployment Rates: 1949 to 1970 . . 61

36. Unemployment in Central Cities and Suburbs of All and

the 20 Largest Metropolitan Areas: 1970 . . 63

37. Percent of Black and Other Races in the Total Employed

Population, by Metropolitan Area: 1970 . 64

38. Employment of Blacks by All Federal Agencies in Each

of the Commissions Regions as of November 30, 1970 . 66

39. Federal Employment, by Grade and Salary Group: 1965 and 1970 67

40. 19/0 Minority Group Study; Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area; Houston, Texas; Full-Time Employment as of November 30, 1970 68

41. Industry, Last Occupation of the Experienced Unemployed, And Income in 1967 of the Residents

of Houston, 1970 (Type of Income of Families) . 71

42. Industry, Last Occupation of the Experienced Unemployed, And Income in 1969 of Residents of Houston by Race 1970 kIndustry) 72

43. Industry, Last Occupation of the Experienced Unemployed, and Income in 1969 of the Residents of Houston by Race - 1970 73

xv Table Page 44. Industry, Last Occupation of the Experienced Unemployed, and Income in 1969 of Kesidents of

Houston: 1970 (AllIncome) ...... 74

4b. Occupation and Earnings of Residents of Houston by Race - 1970 75

46. Occupation and Earnings of Residents of Houston by Race - 1970 76

47. Occupation and Earnings of the Residents of Houston by Race - 1970 77

18. Percentage Distribution of Elementary Pupils for Select Schools by Race 87

49. Percentage Distribution of Selected Junior High Schools by Race, 1970-1972 89

50. A Percentage Distribution of Select Senior High Schools by Race 91

51. Teacher Assignments for Three Elementary Schools by Race 93

52. Pupil-Teacher Ratios for Select High Schools by Race. 93

53. Race of Students and Staff as Reported on H.E.W. Reports (as of October 2, 1972) 94

54. Withdrawals from Selected Schools in the Houston Inde- pendent School District, 1970-1972 96

55. Busing Statistics for Houston 103

56. A Percentage Distribution of Pupils in Selected Schools in HISD (Most Desegregated) 106

57. A Percentage Distribution of Pupils for Select Schools in HISD (Least Desegregated) 107

58. Racial and Ethnic Enrollment Data From Institutions of Higher Education, Fall, 1970 (with 1972-73) 110

59. College Enrollmet of Persons 18 to 24 Years Old, by Sex: 1965 and 1970 111

60. Black Students Enrolled in College by Type of Institution: 1964 to 1968, and 1970 112

61. Percent of Persons 25 Years Old and Over, Who Completed Four Years of High School or More and Four Years of

College or More, for Selected Metropolitan Areas: 1969 . 113

xvi Table Page

78. Gross Rent of Renter Occupied Housing Units: 1970 . . 158

79. Gross Rent of Renter Occupied Housing Units with Negro Head of Household: 1970 159

80. Gross Rent of Renter Occupied Housing Units with House- hold Head of Spanish Language or Spanish Surname: 1970 160

81. Persons in Owner and Renter Occupied Housing Units with Household Head of Spanish Language or Spanish Sur- name: 1970 161

82. Persons in Owner and Renter Occupied Housing Units with Household Head of Spanish Language or Spanish Sur- name: 1970 162

83. Persons in Owner and Renter Occupied Housing Units with Household Head of Spanish Language or Spanish Surname 163

84. infant Deaths by Race and Sex, Houston Residence, 1961- 1971 172

85. Infant Summary of Death, Houston Residence, 1971 . 173

86. Deaths by Race and Sex, Houston Residence, 1960-1971 . 174

87. Frequency of Selected Statistics, Houston Residence, Pq71 176

88. Births by Race, Houston, Texas 177

89. Illegitimates by Race and Sex, Houston Residence, 1963- 1971 178

90. Harris County Delegation in the Texas Legislature . 196

91. Harris County House Members Committee Assignments . 197

92. Bond Election - Houston, Texas, February, 1973 199

93. Committee Assignments of Veteran and Freshmen Black Congressmen: All Democrats 201

94. Voter Analysis in President's, U.S. Senate, and Governor's Race 202

95, Race of Persons Arrested under 18 years of age . 210

96. Sex of Persons Arrested under 18 years of age. 211 Table Page 62. Average Budgeted Faculty Salaries and Ranges, by Rank and Institution nor Public Senior Colleges and

Universities in Texas; Nine months: 1972-73 . . . 114

63. Average Budgeted Faculty Salaries for Public Junior Colleges in Texas; Nine months: 1972-73 116

64. Number of State Employees by Race and Average Pay for State Employees by Race 117

65. Proportion of Blacks and Mexican-Americans in 20 Key State Agencies 118

66. Educational Attainment of Employed Persons by Occupation, Ethnic Group, and Sex 119

67. Educational Attainment of Workers by Ethnic Group, Age, and Sex 120

68. Tenure and Plumbing Facilities for Negro Occupied Units, for 30 Cities With the Largest Negro Population: 1970 126

69. Value of Owner Occupied Housing Units: 1970 146

70. Value of Owner Occupied Housing Units with Negro Head of Household: 1970 148

71. Value of Owner Occupied Housing Units with Household Head

of Spanish Language or Spanish Surname: 1970. . . . 150

72. Household Composition for Owner and Renter Occupied Housing Units: 1970 152

73. Household Composition for Owner and Renter Occupied

Housing Units with Negro Head of Household: 1970 . . 153

74. Household Composition for Owner and Renter Occupied Housing Units with Head of Household of Spanish Language or Spanish Surname: 1970 154

75. Income in 1969 of Families and Primary Individuals in

Owner and Renter Occupied Housing Units: 1970 . . 155

76. Income in 1969 of Families and Primary Individuals in Owner and Renter Occupied Housing Units with Negro Head of Household: 1970 156

77. Income in 1969 of Families and Primary individuals in Owner and Renter Occupied Housing Units with House- hold Head of Spanish Language or Spanish Surname:

. 157 1970 ...... , ......

xvii Table Page

97. Race of Persons Arrested 18 years of age and over. . 212

98. Sex of Persons Arrested 18 years of age and over . . 213

99. City Arrests by Race, 1971 (Under 18). . . 216

100. City Arrests by Race, 1971 (18 and over). . . 217

101. City Arrests by Race, 1971 (Total) 218

102. Suburban Arrests by Race, 1971 (Under 18) 221

103. Suburban Arrests by Race, 1971(18 and over) 222

104. Suburban Arrests by Race, 1971 (Total) 223

105. Total Arrests by Race, 1971 (Under 18) . 224

106. Total Arrests by Race, 1971 (18 and over) 225

107. Total Arrests by Race, 1971(Total) 226

108. Texas Schools Participating in LEEP With Law Enforcement Enrollment and Majors, July 1, 1971 242

109. Employment Data for Small Business Establishments in Houston 251

110. Information on Location of Business Establishments . . 252

111. Marketing Area and Consumer Problems 253

112. Communities Served by Small Businesses in Houston According to Race of Owner 254

113. Principal Competitors of Businesses According to Race of Owner 255

114. Environmental Factors of Business Places 255

115. Educational Attainment and Business Ownership by Race, 1972256

116. Types of Advertising Media Used by Small Business Owners . 256

117. Residential Data and Ownership 257

xix Table Page 118. Percentage of Firms by Type of Business with Specified Percentage of Customers Residing Within Ten Blocks of the Firm 258

119. Percentage of Certain Retail and Service Firms .lith Specified Percentage of Customers Residing Within Ten Blocks of the Firm 259

120. Length of Time at Present Location and Length of Life by Type

of Business and by Ethnic Backgrounds of Owners . 260

121. Length of Time at Present Location and Length of Life for Certain Retail and Service Firms 261

122. Ownership and Monthly Rentals by Type of Business and Ethnic Background of Owner 262

123. Ownership and Monthly Rentals for Certain Retail and Service Firms 263

124. A Numerical and Percentage Distribution of Employees for the

City of Houston by Race and Sex (April, 1973) . . 274

125. A Numerical and Percentage Distribution of Employees for the

City of Houston by Race (April, 1973). . 276

126. Census Tract for Houston 294

127. Percent Distribution of Population by Census Tract and County, 1970 298

128. Number of Persons per Household by Census Tract and County, 1970 312

129. Employment Status of the civilian noninstitutional population in Dallas and Houston by ethnic group, sex, and age -- 1970 annual averages 326

130. Employment Status of the civilian noninstitutional population in Texas by ethnic group, sex, and age 1970 annual averages 327

131, Full- and part-time status of the civilian labor force in Texas, Dallas, and Houston by ethnic group -- 1970 annual averages 328

132. Employed persons 16 years old and over in Texas by occupation, sex, and ethnic group 1970 annual averages 329

xx Table Page 133. Employed persons 16 years old and over in Dallas SMSA by occupation, sex, and ethnic group -- 1970 annual averages 330

134. Employed persons 16 years old and over in Houston SMSA by occupation, sex, and ethnic group -- 1970 annual averages 331

135. Members of the Texas State Board of Education . 339

136. A Numerical an0 Percentage Distribution of Voters in

Mayoral Campaign by Race (Houston, 1971) . . . 340

137. A Distribution of Predominantly Black Precincts by Presidential and Gubernatorial Candidates and

Percentage Turnout (Harris County-November, 1972 . . 341

138. A Distribution of Voters in Predominantly Black Precincts by Total Registered, Candidate, and Percentage Turnout (November and December, 1971) 344

139. A Percentage Distribution of Predominantly Mexican- American Precincts by Presidential and Gubernatorial Candidates and Percentage Turnout (Harris County, November, 1972) 346

140. A Distribution of Predominantly Mexican-American

Precincts in Mayoral Campaign (Houston, Texas, 1971) . 347

141. A Distribution of Revenue Sharing Allocation 348

142. Amount of Money Received in the First Installment of Revenue Sharing 350

143. Revenue Payout by States 351 .

xxi DEFINITICNS OF SELECTED DATA ITEMS

Several types of sources have supplied information for this document. Statistical data pertaining to population characteristics have been drawn from reports of the United States Bureau of the Census for the years indicated. Other sources consisted of news releases, pamphlets, and original studies conducted by various researchers.

Field interviews and telephone surveys were conducted to obtain attitudinal data on certain problem areas included in the report. Refer- ences are cited for data which did not originate with the 1970 Census reports.

For the sake of clarity, definitions and explanations of selected data items are included to explain a great deal of the information extracted from the 1970 Census of the population. These definitions and explanations are as follows:

GENERAL

All population and housing figures presented in the report were taken from the 1970 Census of Population, as taken by the U. S. Depart- ment of Commerce, Bureau of Census, as of April 1, 1970. The information secured from this source is representative of five percent and fifteen percent samples of the total population. Some items, however, represent twenty percent samples. COLUMN HEADINGS

The same definition applies each time a particular term is used, regardless of the geographic location of the area. Classifications are given in some tables for TOTAL, NEGRO (OR BLACK), TOTAL WHITE &

OTHER and SPANISH AMERICAN. Note that Spanish American is not, by census definition, a racial category and therefore is not a consideration in obtaining a breakdown of the total population. Because of this, some figures will not total in the tables. Definitions of the various population groups are as follows:

TOTAL The total population of a geographic area comprised of all persons enumerated whose usual place of residence at the time of census was determined to be in that area.

NEGRO (BLACK) - Includes persons who indicated their race as

"Negro or Black." Also includes persons who indicated the "other race" category and furnished a written entry that should be classified as "Negro or Black."

TOTAL WHITE & OTHER - For this report, "Total White & Other" is defined as the total population less the Negro population. This group includes those tabulated as Spanish American as well as American Indian, and ail other race categories not tabulated as "Negro or Black."

SPANISH AMERICAN - For data items based on a five percent sample the Spanish American group includes all persons who reported Spanish

American origin or descent as Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South America or other Spanish. For data items based on 15 percent or 20 percent samples, thc Spanish American group refers to different populations in different areas of the country: (1) in the three Middle

Atlantic States of New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania, people of

Puerto Rican birth or parentage; (2) in the five Southwestern States of Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas, people of

Spanish Language or of Spanish surname; (3) in the remaining 42

States and the District of COlumbia, people of "Spanish Language."

Any person who reports Spanish as his or her mother tongue is considered a person of Spanish language, The Spanish surname population is identified by computer matching with a list of about 8,000 such names.

NUMBER AND PERCENT - The number under each of the racial/ethnic categories is the projected number of persons tabulated in that demographic category based on the sample data. PERCENT is always calculated as the proportion of people in each demographic category relative to the total number of people in each raoial/ethnic category. Assume, for example, that there is a total population of 100 in an area.

Eighty are white and other and 20 are black. IF four of the white, and other are 65 or older and below the poverty level, then the percentage for this category is calculated as 4/80 or five percent.

ROW HEADINGS

The following definitions apply to data categories listed on the left-hand side of each table:

POPULATION - Comprises all persons enumerated whose usual place of residence at the time of census was determined to be in that area.

xxiv EDUCATION COMPLETED - Population 25 years old and over by years of school completed. The persons enumerated were asked the highest grade or year of regular school they ever attended up to six or more years of college. Persons in school at the time of the census were assumed to have completed that year. Persons were also asked whether they finished the year specified as the highest grade attended. The number tabulated in each category of years of school completed includes persons who report completing that grade or year plus those who attended but did not complete the next higher grade.

<9 YEARS Includes all persons who stopped school before the ninth grade, including those who never attended school.

9-11 YEARS - Includes persons who have completed nine but less than twelve years of shcool.

HIGH SCHOOL - Count of persons who have completed four years of high school but no college.

1-3 YRS. COLLEGE Count of persons who have completed at least one but less than four years of college.

4 OR MORE YRS. COLLEGE - Count of persons who have completed four or more academic years of college.

VOCATIONAL - Ascertained for persons 14-64 years of age who were asked whether they ever completed a vocational training program.

Such training might be offered, for example, in high school; as an apprentice; in a school of business, nursing, or trades; in a technical institute; or an armed forces school. Vocational training does not include courses received by correspondence, on-the-job training,

xxv or armed forces training not useful in a civilian job. Data for this item are based on a five percent sample.

IN SCHOOL IN 1970 - Ascertained for persons three years and older, who were classified as enrolled in school if they attended regular school or college at any time between February 1, 1970, and Arril 1, 1970.

"Regular" schooling includes nursery school, kindergarten, and schooling leading to an elementary school certificate, high school diploma, or college degree. Data for these items are based on a 15 percent sample.

PRE-SCHOOL Includes persons enrolled in nursery school or kindergarten.

ELEMENTARY Includes grades one through eight. Persons enrolled in a junior high school are classified as enrolled in elementary school or high school according to year in which enrolled.

HIGH SCHOOL Includes grades nine through twelve. (See elementary school, above, for treatment of junior high school enrollment.)

COLLEGE - Includes one through six years or more. College enrollment is defined to includeenrollment in junior or community colleges, regular four-year colleges, and graduate or professional schools.

INCOME - Tabulation within each income group is the count of families and unrelated individuals (economic units) receiving an annual income within the stated income range. Income is ascertained for all persons fourteen years of age and over for the calendar year 1969.

Total income is the sum of the dollar amounts of money that respondents

xxvi reported receiving (best estimate if exact amount not known) as wages or salary income, nonfarm and farm self-employment income and other income. Family or household income (the combined incomes of all members of each family or household) are treated as a single amount.

Unrelated individual income is the amount of each individual's total income. Data has been summarized for the following income groups:

<$1,000 $ 1,000- $ 1,999 $ 2,000- $ 2,999 $ 3,000 $ 3,999 $ 4,000 $ 5,999 $ 6,000- $ 9,999 $10,000 $14,999 $15,000 OR MORE

The figures presented are the sum of all families and unrelated individuals fourteen years of age or over reporting an annual income within each range.

MEDIAN FAM. INCOME - Estimated median family income as calculated from a table containing the number of families receiving income within fifteen income intervals. (See family income defined above.)

MED. PER/CAP. INCOME Estimated median individual income as calculated from a table containing the number of unrelated individuals

14 years old and over within each of fifteen income intervals.

BELOW POVERTY LEVEL In 1970, families and unrelated individuals

(excluding college students in dormitories and armed forces personnel in barracks) are classified as being above or below the poverty level, using the poverty index adopted by a federal interagency committee in 1969. This index takes into account such factors as family size, number of children, and farm or non-farm residence, as well as the amount of money income.

NO. OF FAMILIES Number of families reported to be below the poverty level at the time of the 1970 Census.

FAMS. W/CHILDREN (6 Number of families with children under six years of age reported to be below the poverty level at the time of the 1970 Census.

NO. OF PERSONS 65+ - Number of persons 65 years old and over reported to be below the poverty level at the time of the 1970 Census.

HOUSING Tabulations within this category are based on the count of occupied housing units for which value or rent is tabulated.

Value is tabulated only for one-family houses (one-unit structures), detached or attached, which were owner-occupied and which were not on places of ten or more acres, or on properties which also had a business establishment or medical or dental office. Cooperatives, condominiums, mobile homes, and trailers were excluded from the value tabulations.

Rent is tabulated for units rented for cash rent, excluding one-family housing on places of ten or more acres.

MEDIAN MONTHLY RENT - Estimated median monthly gross rent paid for renter-occupied units for which rent is tabulated. Gross rent represents the contract rent plus the average monthly cost of utilities

(water, electricity, gas and fuel) to the extent that these are paid for by the renter (or paid for by a relative, welfare agency, or friend) in addition to the rent. See remarks under "HOUSING" for definition of units for which rent is tabulated. The median rent is calculated from a table containing the number of units within each of fourteen

rent intervals.

MED. VALUE OWNER OCC. Estimated median value of owner occupied housing units for which value is tabulated. The value of owner-occupied units is established by the respondent's estimate of how much the property would sell for on the current market. See remarks under

"HOUSING" for definition of units for which value is tabulated. The median value is calculated from a table containing the number of occupied units within each of eleven intervals.

TRANSPORTATION TO WORK - Ascertained for persons fourteen year's of age and over who reported working during the week before the 1970

Census including armed forces personnel. Respondents were asked what principal mode of travel or type of conveyance they used to get to their Plact of work on the last day they worked. Data are based on a fifteen-percent sample.

PRIVATE AUTO Includes persons who reported they were the driver or a passenger in a private auto.

PUBLIC TRANSP. Includes persons who reported their mode of transportation to work by bus or streetcar, subway or elevated, railroad, or taxicab.

OTHER - Includes persons who reported their mode of transportation to work to be walked only, worked at home, or other means.

OCCUPATION - Population sixteen years old and over in the experienced civilian labor force or in the labor reserve. Employed persons were to report the occupation at which they worked the most hours during the calendar week prior to date of enumeration. The experienced unemployed and persons in the labor reserve were to report their last occupation. Data are presented for six major occupation groups and the experienced unemployed. Each occupation group is identified by Census Code numbers according to the U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Occupational Classification Index.

PROFESSIONAL, TECH. Includes employed persons sixteen years old and over who are classified as professional, technical, and kindred workers. This group includes such occupations as accountants, computer specialists, engineers, lawyers, mathematical specialists, physicians, nurses, teachers, and scientific technicians.

MANAGERS & ADMIN. Includes employed persons sixteen years old and over who are classified as managers and administrators, except on farms. Included are such occupations as public administrators, bank officers, buyers, inspectors, railroad conductors, pilots, school ad- ministrat,n-s, and others.

CLERICAL AND SALES Includes employed persons sixteen years and over classified as sales, clerical, and kindred workers. Included are advertising agents, insurance agents, salesmen, sales clerks, book- keepers, mail carriers, office machine operators, secretaries, and others.

CRAFTSMEN & FOREMEN Employed persons sixteen years old and over classified as craftsmen and kindred workers. Included are such occupations as bakers, carpenters, electricians, mechanics and repairmen, plumbers, and others.

XXX SEMI-SKILLED - Includes employed persons sixteen years old and over who were employed in non-farm occupations not otherwise classified. Includes operatives, transport equipment operatives; laborers, except farm; service workers; and private household workers.

FARM WORKERS - Employed persons sixteen years old and over working in occupations classified as farmers or farm managers, farm laborers and farm foremen.

EXPERIENCED UNEMPLOYED Experienced unemployed population sixteen years of age or over who were neither "at work" nor "with a job but not at work" during the calendar week prior to April 1,1970.

Persons waiting to be called back to a job from which they had been laid off or who were waiting to report to a new wage or salary within

30 days were counted among the unemployed. Unemployment rates are based on the experienced civilian labor force since occupation and industry cannot be ascertained for those unemployed who have never worked. TIEIVIIVAV MOO 128

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

CHAPTER 1

GENERAL PDPULATION CHARACTERISTICS

This document is one of a series about the conditions of blacks and other minorities in Houston, Texas. Statistics are presented on selectedcharacteristics of minority persons in Houston and parts of Harris County. The Urban Resources Center in Texas Southern Uni- versity seeks to communicate information on the problems, issues, and accomplishments of the minority communities. This document is designed to provide data in an organized and systematic way by bringing together in one convenient source socio-economic facts about the minority community and by keeping the document constantly up to date through more current reports.

Data for the central city and some suburban rings in close proximity to Houston proper are given when this type of distinction appears to be significant. The major areas treated in this report are general socio-economic characteristics, population and distribution, family and household size, education, employment and income, housing, poverty, politics, health, economic development statistics, and other pertinent data on minority problems and accomplishments. 2

POPULATION GROWTH AND MIGRATION

The City of Houston is ranked sixth among the country's largest cities in 1970, and it enjoys the distinction of being the largest population center in the South. Harris County is the central county comprising the Houston Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA) and, as such, it provides diversified services for area residents.

The 1970 Census (Fourth Count) reports the population of Harris

County as 1,741,912. For the total SMSA, the population is estimated to be 1,985,031. Included in this total is a rather large concentration of minority groups. The dominant minorities in the Harris County area are blacks, Mexican-Americans, and American-Indians. Since World

War II the black population has increased in Houston in both relative and absolute terms. For instance, in 1950 blacks comprised an estimated 21.1 percent of the population, but by 1960, the percentage had increased to 23.2 percent; in 1970, the percentage of blacks in Houston had reached approximately 25.7 percent. Table 1 shows a numerical and percentage distribution of the population of the total

SMSA by race and county for 1970.

Blacks represented 19.3 percent of the population for the total

SMSA for 1970; 9.4 percent of the population in Brazoria County; 17 percent in Fort Bend County; 11.8 percent of Montgomery County's population; and 20.1 percent of the persons in Harris County for 1970.

The black population of Liberty County was 6,861 for the same period, or 20.8 percent. Approximately 5 percent of the population of Baytown GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE POPULATION Table 1 FORT BEND COUNTY BY REGION AND RACE, 1970 .DACE SMSATOTAL BRAZORIA COUNTY Total Houston (part) Balance Total Baytown HARRIS COUNTY Houston (part) denaPasa- Balance LIBERTY COUNTY Total MONTGOMERY COUNTY Houston (part) Balance PersonsAll 1,985,031 108,312 52,314 53 52,261 1,741,912 43,980 1,232,740 89,277 375,915 33,014 49,479 9 49,470 c..) BlackWhite 1,587,485 382,382 97,68510,137 43,168 8,876 53 - 43,115 8,876 1,377,118 350,668 41,631 2,158 316,551904,827 88,840 45 341,820 26,053 43,461 -9 43,452 BlackPercent 19.3 9.4 17.0 - 17.0 20.1 4.9 25.7 0.1 31,914 8.5 6,861 20.8 5,840 11.8 - 5,840 11.8 /1

was black in 1970. There are a few blacks in Pasadena, Texas, a Hous- ton suburb, with the figure being less than one percent.

As shown below, Houston has had a steady increase in the number of blacks in the city since 1950.

YEAR TOTAL POPULATION BLACK POPULATION PERCENT BLACK

1950 806,700 170,211 21.1% 1960 938,219 217,662 23.2% 1970 1,232,740 316,551 25.7%

The growth of Houston, like other cities of comparable size, has been attributed to several migratory trends. The urban population has exceeded the rural population during every decade since the

Civil War. One migratory effect includes the in-migration of persons from rural areas to urban centers. Persons from rural East Texas and parts of Western and Southern Louisiana make up the bulk of the in-migration sector of the area. In addition, Texas Southern University attracts a large proportion of black students from out of state and, upon graduation, many of these students remain in the city. The internal growth of families currently residing in Houston has also contributed to the population increase of the city and the black population.

The movement of blacks and other minorities into Houston and its suburban fringes began early in the twentieth century. A sustained mobility of blacks from rural areas to the central city has occurred during the last several decades. This migratory movement has been in- terpreted by some as a combination of "push" and "pull" factors -- the push of limited social and economic opportunities characteristic S

of many rural areas in the South, and the magnetic pull of more promising and prevailing opportunities at the destination point. With its rather kaleidoscopic changes, Houston has attracted its share of blacks, but unlike some larger cities, the in-migration of blacks into Houston has been somewhat selective. It appears that a majority of the persons coming into the city bring greater skills than blacks moving into some of the other urban areas. In addition, Houston has been able to hold mcre qualified blacks, with diversified degrees of competency, than cities such as Dallas, Texas, and Saint Louis, Missouri.

For the nation as a whole, the proportion of blacks in central cities increased for each region between 1960 and 1970. Outside the

South, the percentage of blacks in the suburbs (outside central cities) remained approximately the same in some areas. For Houston, more blacks are moving into "suburbia." This movement may be due to the increased percentage of blacks falling within the middle class.

Black population growth in central cities cannot be gainsaid.

In 1970, four out of every ten blacks in the United States were living in the 30 cities with the largest black populations. This percentage of the total black population residing in the 30 selected cities has shown a steady increase since 1950. Tables 2, 3, and 4 rank cities according to the total population and the percentage representation for blacks for 1950, 1960, and 1970.

"Characteristically, cities harbor a larger number and a greater diversity of groups than any rural area." In addition, the growth of cities seems to make group relations more contentious, or at least 6 Table 2. Negro Population, 1970, 1960, and 1950, for 30 Cities With the Largest Negro Population

(Rank according to 1970 Negro population. Numbers in thousands)

Total Negro City and State Per- Per- Per- popu- popu- Number cent Number cent Numbercent lation lation Negro Negro Negro

United States, total 22,578 11 18,872 11 15,042 10 30 selected cities, total 9,217 29 6,837 22 4,501 15 Percent of U.S 41 (X) 36 (X) 30 (X)

1 1 New York, N.Y 1,667 21 1,088 14 749 10 2 2 Chicago, Ill 1,103 33 813 23 493 14 5 3 Detroit, Mich 660 44 482 29 299 16 4 4 Philadelphia, Pa 654 34 529 26 376 18 9 5 Washington, D.0 538 71 412 54 280 35 3 6 Los Angeles, Calif 504 18 335 14 171 9 7 7 Baltimore, Md 420 46 326 35 224 24 6 8 Houston, Tex 317 26 215 23 125 21 1 101 v 9 Cleveland, Ohio 288 33 251 29 148 16 i 101 ..) 10 New Orleans, La 267 45 234 37 181 32

27 11 Atlanta, Ga 255 51 186 38 121 37 18 12 St. Louis, Mo 254 41 214 29 153 18 17 13 Memphis, Tenn 243 39 184 37 147 37 8 14 Dallas, Tex 210 25 129 19 58 13 36 15 Newark, N J 207 54 138 34 75 17 11 16 Indianapolis, Ind 134 18 98 21 64 15 48 17 Birmingham, Ala 126 42 135 40 130 40 29 18 Cincinnati, Ohio 125 28 109 22 78 16 38 19 Oakland, Calif 125 35 84 23 48 12 23 20 Jacksonville, Fla 118 22 *106 *23 *32 *27

26 21 Kansas City, Mo 112 22 83 18 56 12 12 22 Milwaukee, Wis 105 15 62 8 22 3 9(1. 23 Pittsburgh, Pa 105 20 101 17 82 12 57 24 Richmond, Va 105 42 92 42 73 32 16 25 Boston, Mass 105 16 63 9 40 5 21 26 Columbus, Ohio 100 19 77 16 45 12 13 27San Francisco, Calif.. 96 13 74 10 43 6 28 28 Buffalo, N.Y 94 20 71 13 37 6 75 29 Gary, Ind 93 53 69 39 39 29 30 30 Nashville-Davidson, Tenn. 38 20 *76 *19 *64 *20

X Not applicable.

* 1960 and 1950 populations revised in accordance with 1970 boundaries.

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 7

Table 3. Negro and Other Races, Population Change and Net Migration, 1960 to 1970, for 30 Cities With the Largest Negro Population: 1970

(Numbers in thousands. Minus sign (-) denotes decrease)

Net migration, 1960 Cities 1970 Change, to 1970 1960 to 1970 Number Percent1

New 'ark, N.Y 1,844 +703 +436 +38 Chicago, Ill 1,159 +322 +113 +14 Detroit, Mich 673 +185 +98 +20 Philadelphia, Pa 670 +135 +40 +7 Washington, D.C. 547 +124 +38 +9 Los Angeles, Calif 642 +225 +120 +29 Baltimore, Md 426 +98 +32 +10 Houston, Tex 328 +111 +56 +26 Cleveland, Ohio 293 +40 -3 -1 New Orleans, La 270 +35 -11 -5

Atlanta, Ga 256 +70 +33 +18 St. Louis, Mo 257 +41 -1 - Memphis, Tenn 244 +60 +23 +12 Dallas, Tex 218 +87 +47 +36 Newark, N J 214 +75 +32 +23 Indianapolis, Ind 137 +36 +15 +15 Birmingham, Ala 127 -8 -23 -17 Cincinnati, Ohio 127 +17 -3 -2 Oakland, Calif 148 +51 +29 +30 Jacksonville, Fla 121 +15 -4 -4

Kansas City, Mo 116 +31 +13 +16 Milwaukee, Wis 112 +46 +23 +35 Pittsburg, Pa 108 +6 -6 -6 Richmond, Va 106 +13 +1 +1 Boston, Mass 116 +48 +26 +39 Columbus, Ohio 102 +24 +9 +12 San Francisco, Calif 204 +69 +37 +28

Buffalo, N.Y . 98 +25 +9 +12 Gary, Ind 94 +24 +10 +14 Nashville-Davidson, Tenn...... 89 2+12 +2 +3

- Rounds to zero.

1 Base is population at beginning of period. 2 1960 population revised in accordance with 1970 boundaries.

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Table 4. Thirty Places With the Highest Proportion of Negroes, by Rank: 1970, 1960, and 1950

(Rank according to percent Negro in 1970, (U) denotes unincorporated place)

170 Negro Population 1960 1950 Rank City and State Percent Total 15 years percent percent of Number papule- and over-- Negro Negro total tion percent Negro

1. Willowt)rook, Calif (U) 82.3 23,616 28,705 82.1 (X) (X)

2. Westmont, Calif. (1') 82.5 23,635 7:i. -,' (X) (X) 3. Washington, D.0 71.1 537,712755,510 65.4 53.9 35.0 4. Compton, Calif 71.9 55,737 73,611 66.6 39.4 4.5 5. East St. Louis, Ill. 69.1 48,35869,996 63.9 44.5 33.5 6. East Cleveland, Ohio 58.6 23,196 39,600 51.3 2.1 0.2 7. Florence-Graham, Calif. (U) 56.0 94,031 12,395 56.0 44.9 (X) 2. Highland Park, Mich. 55.3 19,639 35,444 43.; 20.9 8.4 9. Petersburg, Va 5.2 19,01a 1r10; 51.7 47.2 42.2 10. Newark, N.J '44 997,458'7,R9,477 49.0 34.1 17.1

11. East Orange, N.J 53.1 10,099 75,471 47.4 24.9 11.4 12. Gary, Ind 52.8 92,695175,415 49.2 3P.8 29.3 13, Bessemer, Ala 52.2 17,442 33,428 43.5 57.4 60.7 14. Greenville, Miss 52.0 20,619 39,648 L8.9 48.6 59.3 15. Atlanta, Ga 51.3 255,051496,97'1 :f..4 38.3 36.6 16. Prichard, Ala 50.5 21,005 11,573 17.2 47.1 33.5 17. Augusta, Ga aq,9 29,831 59,864 45.7 45.0 41,0 18. Selma, Ala 49.7 13.605 27,379 45.2 49.2 55.2 19. Vicksburg, Miss 49.3 12,56S95,178 45.0 46.4 48.8 20. Ft. Pierce, Fla 43.5 1A,11-9? 29,771 42.5 46.9 40.4

21. Goldsboro, N.0 48.1 12,896 26,S10 45.1 41.2 44.9 22. Baltimore, Md 46.4 420,210905,759 41.9 34.7 23.7 23. Charleston, 45.9 30,251 ;6,915 39.8 50.2 44.0 24. Chester, Pa 45.2 25,469 55,331 -).a 33.3 20.9 25. New Orleans, La 45.0 267,300.593,171 40 .1 37.2 31.9 r 26. Savannah, Ga da,g 53,111118,349 A1.0 ,....c.)...) 40.4 27. Inkster, Mich 44.5 17,189 38,595 44.0 34.5 53.7 28. Atlantic City, N.J 42.7 20,937 47,359 38.5 36.2 27.2 29, Detroit, Mich 43.7 560,4281,511,482 39.3 28.9 16.2 30. Wilmington, Del 35,072 30,3c6 37.1 26.0 15.6

Note: Of 200 places with a total population of 25,00 or more and Negro population of at least 10,000, the 30 places with the highest proportion of Negroes were presented by rank. X Not applicable.

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Sureau of the Census. 9

more unstable and problematic, than do rural commnities. In part this instability arises from the sheer rapid growth of cities, which means that the numerical distribution of groups is constantly changing.

The article, "Cities and Group Conflict," emphasizes the fact that rural-urban migrants are drawn out of the local context in which their relations formed part of a traditional fabric and are transplanted into a new one in which the order is worked out on a more competitivebasis.1

Research data will show that a large proportion of Houston's minorities came to the city from rural areas and that these same individuals are exposed to a new kind of order. Black population growth in Harris

County, accelerated by the coincidence of technology and changing urban patterns, has had some effects upon the city. An examination of select socio-economic variables shows the degrees of uneveness in the social, economic, and political life of the black segment of the population in relation to its white counterpart. Principal differences between white and nonwhite families are shown in education, income, poverty, housing, employment, occupation, transportation to work, family size, and other related factors. Sections included in this report provide data and limited analyses of the inequities and achievements of the black population in Houston. Limited information is also available on the Mexican-American population of the city.

EDUCATION

The median years of schooling completed for persons 25 years of age and over for the total population in the Standard Metropolitan 10

Statistical Area for 1970 was 12.1 years, with 51.7 percent of the

population listed as high school graduates. For Houston proper (as part

of Harris County), the median educational level for the total popula-

tion was 12.1, and 51.8 percent of the population indicated that they

were high school graduates, comparing favorably and equally with the

SMSA as a whole.

The median school years completed for persons 25 years of age

and over in the black population ,f the city include 10.2 years for

all blacks in the SMSA, with 32.7 percent of the population graduating

from high school. For blacks in Houston proper, about 35 percent of

the population are high school graduates, with a median educational

level for the total black population as 10.4 years. These findings

are based on national sample statistics collected by the United States

Bureau of the Census for 1970. Table 5 shows a distribution of the

population by median school years completed.

Table 5 A Distribution of the Population by Race, Median Years of School Completed, Percent High School Graduates, and County, 1970

TOTAL POPULATION BLACK POPULATION SPANISH LANG. OR SURNAME COUNTY % High School % High School % High School Median Graduates Median Graduates Median Graduates

Brazoria 12.1 53.3 8.7 20.9 7.7 27.8 Fort Bend 9.7 34.5 8.3 17.1 5.7 10.5 HARRIS ,.2.1 52.7 10.3 34.0 9.1 34.2 Liberty 10.1 33.1 7.8 19.2 8.2 31.7 Montgomery 11.3 44.2 8.4 22.1 11.7 48.6 11

Some of the significant highlights regarding educational attainment in Houston will be treated in the next chapter on "Education."

However, we would like to emphasize the following findings:

1. The level of education for blacks in Houston is below that for the total population of Brazoria (12.1) and Montgomery (11.3) counties, but above the median educational levels for whites in Fort Bend (9.7) and Liberty (10.1) counties.

2. Proportionately, as many black as white high school graduates went on to college in 1972, and the black dropout rate before high school graduation has declined sharply during the last decade, according to a report of the United States Department of Labor. On the basis of available statistics, 49.4 percent of the whites and 47.6 percent of the black high school graduates of last June enrolled in college as of 1972. The 1.8 percent differential is considered "statistically insignificant." In Houston complete figures were not available but reliable sources indicate that black college enrollment of graduates from high schools in the city is also increasing. The Texas Southern University enrollment increases reflect this trend. Enrollment at TSU mushroomed during the last several years, with an increase of almost 50 percent (from less than 3,000 in the early 1960's to more than 6,000) for the 1972-73 academic year.

3. Despite the upsurge in college enrollment, it is believed that a larger proportion of young blacks still leave school before high school graduation, about 19 percent as of October, 1972, as compared to around 13 percent for whites in the Nation as a whole. Relative rates, however, have changed markedly during the last few years. In 1963, 33 percent of all blacks dropped out, almost twice as many as whites, with 17 percent dropout rate. In 1968,21.6 percent and 12.5 percent respectively; in 1970, 23 and 11.7 percent; and in 1971, 20 and 12 percent. Approximately 347,000 young blacks were graduated from high school in 1972. 12

4. The black population of Houston had attained more years of schooling, in absolute and relative terms, than their racial counterparts who reside outside of the central city for 1970.

5. Among persons 3 and 4 years of age, more black children than white or those with Spanish surnames are enrolled in school. 17 percent of all black children 3 and 4 years of age, as compared to 16.3 percent for the total population and 9.2 percent of the children with Spanish surnames, were found to be enrolled in public or private schools and day care centers in 1970. The enrollment figures are partially due to the increased number of day care centers partially financed through Model Cities programs, HCCA and other federally-funded day care center,

Table 6 shows the school enrollment for the population of persons

3 through 34 years of age and nursery school and kindergartenen- rollment for 1970. Table 7 gives a numerical and percent distribution of persons by race and according to years of school completed while

Table 8 reveals the percentage of the population enrolled in school by select ages and by county.

As will be noted in Table 6, the greater proportion of blacks between the ages of three and thirty-four years were enrolled in public elementary schools. As of 1970, less than three percent of the black school-age population was in nursery school; 6.2 percent in kindergarten; 64.3 percent in elementary schools (1 to 8 years);

20.4 percent in high schools; and 6.4 percent of the black population of Houston in college.

From the data presented, it is safe to conclude that the educational attainment of the population in Houston, Harris County, and for the SCHOOL ENROLLMENT OF THE POPULATION (3-34 YEARS) OF HOUSTON BY RACE, 1970 TABLE 6 SchoolTotal Enrollment,Enrollment 3 to 34 years old BlackUrban101,694 (Percent) S Urbananish (Percent)49,384 Nursery School Public 2,743 948 ( 2.7%) 858329 ( 1.7%) ElementaryKindergarten Public (1 to 8 years) 65,416 5,0246,291 (64.3%)( 6.2%) 32,730 2,8113,407 (66.3%)( 6.8%) CollegeHigh School PublicPublic (1 to 4 years) 20,10820,70964,291 6,535 ( (20.4%)6.4%) 30,54217;7912,7989,591 ((19.4%) 5.7%) Percent3 and 4Enrolled, years old 3 to 34 years old 17.052.0 49.7 9.2 5 16147and toand 613 years1517 years years old old old 96.364.387.396.7 65.379.793.096.7 25222018 toand and 3424 21 19years years years old old old 19.047.3 9.94.5 11.148.815.8 3.8 14

TABLE 7

YEARS OF SCHOOL COMPLETED BY MINORITY GROUPS BY SEX CHouston, A70) CUFMT--- (Urban) Total Percent Total Percent Spanish- Spanish Years of School Completed Black Black American American

Male, 25 years and over 67216 (46.7) 30146 (50.3) No school years completed 1962 2.9 2389 8.0

Elementary: 1 to 4 years 7506 11.1 3946 13.1 5 to 7 years 12386 18.4 6164 20.4 8 years 5654 8.4 2479 8.2

High School: 1 to 3 years 17635 26.2 4744 15.7 4 years 13343 19.9 4620 15.3

College: 1 to 3 years 5327 8.0 2805 9.3 4 years or more 3403 5.1 2999 10.0 Median school years completed 10.0 9.1 Percent high school graduates 32.8 34.6

Female, 25 years and over 76566 (53.3) 29808 (49.7) No school years completed 1528 2.0 2692 9.0

Elementary: 1 to 4 years 5157 6.7 4030 13.5 5 to 7 years 11856 15.5 6071 20.4 8 years 6489 8.5 2598 8.7

High School: 1 to 3 years 23725 31.0 52 41 17.6 4 years 16954 22.1 5596 18.8

College: 1 to 3 years 5697 7.4 2107 7.1 4 years or more 5160 6.7 1473 4.9 Median school years completed 10.7 8.8 Percent high school graduates 36.3 ---- 30.8 ---- 15

Table 8. Percentage of the Population Enrolled in School by Age and County, 1970*

County and Age % Total Population

Brazoria

16 and 17 years 89.0 18 and 19 years 57.9 20 and 21 years 16.4 22 to 24 years 11.1 25 to 34 years 7.2

Fort Bend

16 and 17 years 82.3 18 and 19 years 50.2 20 and 21 years 11.2 22 to 24 years 3.9 25 to 34 years 1.4

Harris

16 'and 17 years 88.5 18 and 19 years 54.4 20 and 21 years 25.2 22 to 24 years 13.6 25 to 34 years 5.3

Liberty

16 and17 years 81.6 18 and 19 years 41.9 20 and 21 years 10.6 22 to 24 years 3.2 25 to 34 years 2.5

Montgomery

16 and 17 years 80.2 18 and 19 years 40.6 20 and 21 years 14.8 22 to 24 years 5.7 25 to 34 years 1.9

*Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population and Housing: 1970, "Census Tracts", Final Report PHC (1)-89, Houston, Texas,SMSA. 16

total SMSA varies by race. More importantly, today many young black children begin some form of schooling at the age of 3 or 4. Sharp differences exist in the median years of schooling completed by age and race. The black population of Harris County 25 years of age and over and in most other adult age groups was slightly below whites in the proportion of high school graduates when compared with whites and Spanish-speaking persons and/or those with Spanish surnames. In the latter instance, the difference was minimal (0.2 percent).

In Montgomery County, the Spanish category for the percentage of high school graduates surpasses that for the total population as a whole. Only 44.2 percent of the total population in Montgomery County completed high school as compared with 48.6 percent for persons of

Spanish origin or with Spanish surnames. These data are shown in

Table 5.

INCOME

Houston ranks 19th among forty of the nation's largest cities in median family income according to figures appearing in the Houston

Post (October 3, 1972). The figures for each city were tabulated for central cities, excluding larger metropolitan areas. Using the available data, cities were ranked according to median family income.

These data are shown in Table 9.

The annual family income for the black population increased tremendously during the decade, 1960-1970, but it still falls behind 17

Table 9 A Distribution of Median Family Income For Forty (40) Select Citiesin U.S., 1970

Rank City Median Income

1. Honolulu $12,539 2. San Jose, Calif. 11,927 3. Seattle, Washington 11,037 4. Indianapolis, Indiana 10,754 5. St. Paul, Minnesota 10,544 6. Los Angeles, Calif. 10,535 7. San Francisco, Calif. 10,503 8. Toledo, Ohio 10,474 9. Long Beach, Calif. 10,282 10. Milwaukee, Wisconsin 10,262 11. Chicago, Illinois 10,242 12. Omaha, Nebraska 10,208 13. San Diego, Calif. 10,166 14. Detroit, Michigan 10,019 15. Rochester, New York 10,002 16. Minneapolis, Minnesota 9,960 17. Phoenix, Arizona 9,956 18. Kansas City, Missouri 9,910 19. Houston, Texas 9,876 20. Tulsa, Oklahoma 9,870 21. Portland, Oregon 9,799 22. Columbus, Ohio 9,731 23. New York, N.Y. 9,682 24. Denver, Colorado 9,654 25. Oakland, Calif. 9,626 26. Washington, D.C. 9,583 27. Nashville, Tenn. 9,473 28. Davidson, Tenn. 9,473 29. Philadelphia, Penn. 9,366 30. Fort Worth, Texas 9,271 31. Boston, Mass. 9.133 32. Cleveland, Ohio 9,107 33. Oklahoma City, Okla. 9,106 34. Cincinnati, Ohio 8,894 35. Baltimore, Md. 8,815 36. Buffalo, N.Y. 8,804 37. Pittsburgh, Pa. 8,800 38. Jacksonville, Fla. 8,671 39. Memphis, Tenn. 8,646 40. Louisville, Kentucky 8,546 18

the income level of white families in Harris County. Black family income did not increase in the same proportion as white income despite the fact that the average black family has more mouths to feed.

The number of persons per household for white families was 3.19 in

1970 for Harris County, 3.09 for Houston proper, and 3.21 for the total SMSA. For the black population, the number of persons per household for Harris County was 3.51; for Houston proper, 3.47; and for the total SMSA, 3.50. Refer to the Appendices for complete data given by census tract for total population, total white, total black and percentages; a percent distribution of population by census tract and county; and the number of persons per household by census tract and county for 1970.

The median family income for families and unrelated individuals for the total Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area was $8,686 in

1970; in Harris County, $8,742; in Houston proper, $9,876. Black median family income for the total SMSA was $6,213, which is about

$2,000 less than total population family income for the same category.

In Harris County, the black population had a median family income of

$6,371, about $2,300 less than that for the total population. In

Houston alone, the income differential between black and white families approximates more than $2,000. In the other four counties comprising part of the metropolitan area, income inequities between the races are evident. Table 10 shows a distribution of family income for the total SMSA, by county and by race. 19

Table 10

MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME FOR THE TOTAL POPULATION IN EACH COUNTY AND BY RACE, 1970

County Total Population Black Population Spanish/Surname*

Total SMSA $8,686 $6,213 $8,218

Brazoria 9,682 5,071 7,839 Fort Bend 7,257 4,258 6,548 HARRIS 8,742 6,371 8,373 Liberty 6,117 4,712 5,154 Montgomery 7,632 3,734 8,200

*It should be noted that the "Spanish/Surname" category is not truly representative of the incomes of Mexican-American or Chicano residents in Houston and the other counties. As indicated in "Defini- tions of Selected Data Items," the Spanish American group includes all persons who reported origin or descent as Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American or other Spanish. In fact, the Spanish American category is more representative of the category "other minorities and nonwhites," not including blacks.

Source: U.S. Bureau of Census, cen§u5 J Populatjo Apj ausing: mg, "Census Tracts," Final Report, Houston, Texas SMSA PHC (1)-89.

National, state, and local statistics show that despite gains in the area of civil rights during the last decade, inequities exist

`-etween white and nonwhite persons in Houston and other parts of the country. Gains in income were experienced by all groups but for blacks, these gains were not sufficient enough to erase wide differentials in income and occupational status. While black income did increase, white income increased also. The gap narrowed slightly 20

in some sections of the country, but proportionately -- in Houston as elsewhere -- gains in black income were not substantial enough to close previous gaps.

The largest proportion of blacks are still found at the lower end of the income scale. Table 11 compares the annual income range from 1960 with that for 1970 for blacks, with totals for the county as a whole.

Table 11

A COMPARISON OF ANNUAL INCOME BY RACE AND BY DECADE WITH THAT FOR THE COUNTY*

1960 1970 Income Category Total Total Black County Black County

Under $5,000 75.6 38.0 37.4 16.4 $ 5,000 - $ 9,999 21.8 44.4 41.4 31.2 $10,000 $14,999 2.5 11.9 15.4 28.7 $15,000 - $24,999 2.5 3.8 5.0 18.1 $25,000 - $49,999 2.5 1.9 0.6 4.5 $50,000 and Over 2.5 1.9 0.1 1.0

*Source: Bureau of the Census, "Detailed Social and Economic Characteristics: Texas," Washington: Government Printing Office, 1970.

A further examination of income classification reveals that the median family income for black families rose from $3,386 in 1960 to

$6,371 in 1970, a gain of $2,985. By contrast, however, county-wide income increased almost twice as much as black income over the 1960 figure. Black family median income, in dollars and cents, is $1,300 less than the median for the county as a whole. 21

POVERTY

It has long been recognized that "poverty" is a socio-economic

phenomenon which may be viewed within the framework of several per-

spectives. One viewpoint is that America has the resources to eradicate

poverty and that our failure to do so is an indictment against our-

selves. This perspective is humanitarian in focus and underscores the

indifference exercised by our society toward less affluent people.

Another view has been called self-reserving deception. It grows from our inability or unwillingness to understand the causes of poverty. Our Protestant Ethic (free will) rugged individualism value orientation has taught us to believe that men are largely

responsible for their own destinies. This is the basic perspective

illustrated in the Nixonian "work ethic" phrases. This view, discussed by President Nixon in his Second Inaugural Address (1973) equates poverty with laziness despite the fact that empirical research

has challenged this belief.

One view which differs from those previously stated is that it

is more important to understand what impoverishment does to those who are poor. This particular perspective calls for an understanding of the psychological consequences of poverty damages inflicted upon the human spirit. Proponents of the "work versus welfare" ethic refuse 't.o blame societal and institutional inadequacies for poverty;

they prefer to blame the victim. Those who continue to do so fail

to recognize the potential danger of "utilitarian enlightened self-respect," 22

a view which pivots on a recognition of the disruptive-revolutionary potential of the poor.2

The dimensions of poverty in Houston and in Texas will be treated briefly in this document. A statistical analysis of poverty will be noted in relative, rather than absolute terms. The absence of

"absoluteness" of poverty involves the inability to measure the total cost of impoverishment which would necessarily include psychological considerations.

Although the incomes of blacks and other minorities increased during the last decade, a large proportion of these groups were faced with relative deprivation when compared with whites. Disparities in black and white incomes are invariably contributed to the poverty status of many residents in Houston and Harris County. Blacks made up about 20 percent of the population of Harris County, 19.3 percent of the population of the total SHSA, and about 26 percent of the population of Houston. Despite this low representation when compared with the majority population, 49 percent of all families with incomes below the poverty level ($4,137) in Harris County were black. Com- paratively speaking, one out of every four black families in Harris

County live in poverty, while one in 17 white families may be classified this way. The estimated 20,000 families considered poverty- stricken manage to survive at a subsistence level approaching $2,200 on an average per year. Tables 12 and 13 give data regarding the existence of poverty in Houston and Harris County. POVERTY STATUS OF RESIDENTS OF HOUSTON BY RACES: Table 12 1970 All Income Levels Families 500,236 Total BlackP5,023 71,656Urban Spanish 32,243 MeanWithPercent numbersizerelated receivingof of familychildren related public underchildren assistance 1818 years income. 315,991 2.323.64 3.5 59,511 2.694.06 9.0 50,257 2.664.02 8.6 24,486 2.754.42 3.9 WithPercentFamilies related of with headschildren female in labor underhead force618 years years 55,53414,61850,460 70.5 15,07018,879 7,565 66.2 12,99516,234 6,576 67.3 2,5441,1743,237 56.7 PercentCivilian in 65male laboryears heads forceand under over 65 years Family heads_ 500,236112,662 95.7 8.4 59,80485,023 93.2 9.8 50,72571,656 93.7 8.5 27,47232,243 95.7 5.4 Percent receiving65 years andpublic over assistance income. Unrelated individuals 142,804 23.2 5.4 29,488 22.810.4 25,334 20.4 9.2 6,595 13.9 4.1 PercentPercent 65 receiving years and social over security income Persons 1,962,422 72.1 6.45.9 375,064 63.7 5.86.7 313,20? 62.2 6.25.3 149,064 66.7 3.14.1 In owner occupied housingMean value unit of unit Households_ $17,980572,640337,725 $11,035101,487 48,630 $11,715 86,54238,465 $13,998 15,45635,028 PercentIn renter lacking occupied some Mean housingorfacilities allgross plumbingunit rent .... , 234,915 2.5$82 52,857 8.4$87 48,077 4.3$85 19,572 2.1$94 Table 12 All Income Levels POVERTY STATUS OF RESIDENTS OF HOUSTON BY RACES: Total Black 1970 Urban (Cont.) S.anish MeanPercent incomefamily of alldeficitincome families Families, $1,68049,121$2,010 9.8 22,774$1$2,132 ,826 26.8 $1,848$2,12818,109 25.3 $1,751$2,436 5,125 15.9 WithMeanPercent related number receiving childrenof related publicMean under childrensize assistance 18 ofyears familyunder income. 18 35,261 4.123.0613.4 18,244 4.503.2418.8 14,781 4.503.2318.6 4,348 3.344.7910.5 WithPercentWithFamilies related related of yearswith headschildren children female in labor under headunder force6 18years years 15,27017,422 7,822 59.0 10,559 9,5185,250 59.8 4,4687,9938,783 60.7 1,3351,424 43.2 701 CivilianPercent 6-yearsmale heads andPercent underover 65in yearslabor force Family Heads 25,11449,121 81.416.8 22,774 9,813 79.414.9 18,109 7,794 80.112.1 5,1253,350 87.9 7.8 a e Income Less POVERTY STATUS OF RESIDENTS Total OF HOUSTON IN 1969 BY Black RACE - 1970 Spanish Unrelated Mean% income of all unrelated individuals 'Than viciudfsPoverty TeveT 45,109 $80831.6 14,310 $77448.5 2,958 $70537.3 %Mean income deficit65receiving years and public over assistance income $1021 38.313,7 $1064 35.318.4 $1167 23.610.0 Persons % receivingof all parsons Social Security 247,427 13.212.6 116,763 31.1 38,389 18.2 Related% children under65receiving years 18 and Social over Security income years 107,330 71.412.6 58,720 63.6 9.19.7 21,409 71.4 6.34.5 Households % of% all households living with both parents 74,815 13.152,0 31,316 30.941.0 8,144 69.317.2 MeanIn renterownervalue occupiedofoccupied unit housingMeanhousing gross unitsunits rent $11,221 44,31830,497 $84 19,68311,633 $9050 $74 5,570$92832,574 $74 Income Less Than 75% of Poverty Level % facilitiesLacking all or some plumbing 9.4 15 1 9.4 Families FamiliesMean% income with deficit female ofhead all families 13,36932,817 $1353 6.6 15,909 8,250$1404 18.7 1,354$14744,321 9.6 PersonsUnrelated individualsMean% income defi ci tof all related individuals 168,258 35,424 $76624.8 82,34411,879 $76440.3 23,040 2,509 $86131.6 %Related children under%55 years 18 years and over living with both parents 79,079 43.712.1 41,611 33,0 9.3 12,144 59.2 5.1 POVERTY STATUS OF RESIDENTS OF HOUSTON IN 1969 BY RACE - 1970 (Cont.) Table 13 Income Less 'Than 125% of -Poverty Level Total Black S anish Families % FamiliesMeanof all income families with deficit female head 67,13721,384 $1993 13.8 30,53312,551 $2232 35.9 10,371 2,075$2106 23.1 Unrelated individuals% Meanof all income unrelated de fi ci individualst 53,820 $1276 37.7 16,752 $1334 56.8 $14643,365 42.4 Persons % Related%living 65 years withchildren and both over underparents 18 years 151,605342,763 59.411.7 154,710 77,648 48.6 8.3 32,04357,155 75.7 3.8 27

To be sure, poverty is an individual problem, but more than this,

it is a problem which affects the community and the general society.

The dimensions of poverty in Houston prior to 1970 were discussed in a report of the Houston-Harris County Economic Opportunity Organiza- tions (now HCCA) in 1965. The report states that the major proportion of the blacks living in Houston were poor. In 1965, the HCCA indicated

that 25 percent of the people in Harris County and 28 percent of the people in Houston had poverty-level incomes. Whites comprised 36 percent of the poor; Mexican-Americans totaled about 11 percent, but blacks represented 53 percent of the poverty population in the county and 59 percent of the city's poor citizens. By 1970, the percentage of the county's poor blacks had dropped to 49 percent, a decrease of about four percentage points.

The effects of the War on Poverty efforts cannot be assessed

in absolute terms. From the data available, a slight decrease in

the ranks of the poor did take place during the five years of the existence of the Office of Economic Opportunity (0E0). However, the

real challenge remains. It is the task of proving today and in the future that it is both possible and necessary to maintain and extend a society of opportunity to a diverse minority citizenry. The relevancy of this challenge lies in the potential preventive elements necessary to abort or at least arrest intergenerational poverty.

The proposed cuts in domestic spending by the Nixon Adminis- tration are viewed as threats to the survival of programs desi.gned

to aid the poor. The irony of criticisms launched against the continued 23

existence of the programs lies in absurdity. It is absurd to believe and unrealistic to assume that years of deprivation can suddenly be erased in five years. The dividends from monetary and human invest- ment will be reaped long after the program has ceased to exist.

Occupying the center stage of the most expensive inauguration

in the nation's history (estimated cost of $3 to $4 million), Presi-

dent Nixon outlined proposals to cut funds allocated for major domestic programs, including funds for the Office of Economic Opportunity, federal subsidies for housing of the poor, lower middle, and middle classes. There was a special irony in the President's inaugural message of 1973. He emphasized world peace, use of American power and

responsibilities, solving differences, faith in America, and self- reliance. He urged Americans to do more for themselves and to demand

less from government. For the nation's poor, this is easier said than done. Certain blockages to upward mobility in the American economic structure in the Nation, the State, and Houston still exist.

Invisible screens of discrimination in employment, housing, education, and income are apparent. The prevalence of societal difference, racist attitudes -- reflected in the general society and our basic institutional structures operate to increase the difficulty of escaping from poverty.

A recent report on the War on Poverty in Texas (The Houston Post,

March 18, 1973) implies that substantial inroads have not been made in alleviating the problem for the State. "At the bottom of the economic pile in Texas are 2.5 million people who live in poverty 29

one in every five Texans," the report said. A careful examination

of the article cited brings into sharp focus an even more serious

revelation. The massive profile on poverty shows "dry statistics

and ugly facts of being poor overcrowded housing, inadequate health

care, little or no education." What the report does not say is that

these individuals who make up this profile also suffer indignities,

insecurities, and anxieties because they are poor and dependent. Con-

trary to popular opinions, myths or stereotypes, a greater proportion

of the poor and elderly are white. In an overall sense, 22 percent

of the people in Texas are poor, a difference of about 13 percent

when compared with the national average.

Over a third,of the poor in Texas are under 15 years of age;

nearly a fifth of the poor are over 65 years of age; and of all elderly

pecple in the state, four out of ten are poor.

A racial breakdown of the poverty population shows that roughly

three-fourths of the aged and poor are white. If one further stra-

tifies the population, it is found that the elderly poor cut across

racial and ethnic backgrounds.

Myths concerning "not wanting to work" are also challenged in

the analysis of the Texas poverty population. Over one-third or 38 percent, of the poor adults in Texas are employed, and 31 percent are

retired. This means that an estimated 70 percent of the adult poor

exist in poverty which could not be broken by virtue of gainful

employment. 30

Disparities in education are pronounced for the poor in Texas.

The average level of education among the poor is about 8 years. This average educational level is far below the median educational level for the total population. Education and income represent only a few of the many inadequacies characteristic of poor people in Houston,

Texas, and the Nation. Crowded living conditions, poor health care, and the lack of skills and education are a few of the cumulative ail- ments plaguing the nation's poor.

In Houston, it is estimated that 80,000 working men and women are actually poor. The alarming thing about this figure is that this group represents those who are not making it out of poverty, and there are no programs planned, formulated, or in operation which can provide the necessary assistance for extricating them from their poverty status.

The latest census figures for Brazoria, Fort Bend, and Harris counties indicate that the Houston SMSA has its share of poor people.

In Harris County, about 9 percent of all families are below the poverty line, with 17.7 percent of the families in Fort Bend County falling into this category; and in Brazoria, 8.4 percent of the families are below the poverty line. Black and Spanish American families are disproportionately represented among the poverty populations for the three counties. In Harris County, 25.6 percent of the black families are below the poverty level; in Fort Bend County, 42.2 percent; and in Brazoria County, about 35 percent fall below the poverty level as defined by the Bureau of the Census. 31

A large proportion of elderly people are poverty stricken if we measure their status according to statistics for Harris County. About one-fourth of the elderly population in Harris County is in poverty.

A statistical breakdown by race shows that 44.9 percent of the elderly

65 years of age for the black population fall below the poverty level;

64.4 percent in Fort Bend County; with about 62.6 percent in Brazoria

County. The latter two counties are predominantly rural and, from all indication, the rural poor are plagued with severe problems of health, housing, education, and employment. Proximity to Houston has not alleviated problems for rural blacks in adjoining counties.

The median family income for blacks in Harris County is about

57 percent of that for whites and others. The median family income forblacks in Harris County was $6,370 in 1970; for Spanish Americans,

$8,372, and for whites, $11,258,It should be noted that the figure for the "Spanish American" does not reflect the true plight of Mexican-

Americans in Harris County. The census definition includes Mexican-

Americans, Puerto Ricans, Cubans, and other Spanish. The median family income of the Mexican-American is below that for Black Americans in

Harris County.

Tables 14, 15, and 16 contain data on selected demographic and socio-economic characteristics for Harris, Fort Bend, and Brazoria counties. The tables following (Tables 17 through 24) are taken from the U.S. Department of Labor's, "Statistical Tables," Poverty in

Houston's Central City, (Region 6, Bureau of Labor Statistics Regional

Report Series No. 1, February, 1970). SELECTED DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS FROM THE 1970 CENSUS TABLE 14 FOR HARRIS COUNTY POPULATION: 1741912 Number TOTAL 100.000Percent 351113Number NEGRO Percent 20.156 1390799 Number WHITE F., OTHERS Percent 79.843 NumberSPANISH185715 AMERICAN * Percent10.661 EDUCATION COMPLETED:<9 years9-11High years school 220828208532213501 24.74023.36223.919 456095922133033 20.81128.73437.309 187795162923154280 25.59022.20121.023 131571230936472 17.74116.59749.180 IN SCHOOL IN 1970: Vocational41-3 or yrs. more college yrs. college 255621118858130857 13.31614.660 4852611817 9047 5.6997.444 207095107041121810 14.58616.598 16615 64725750 8.7277.753 CollegeHighElementaryPre-school school 117259311959 4889644819 22.42359.655 9.3508.570 2369173007 69149774 64.38820.894 6.0978.620 238952 419829356835045 22.84610.25058.345 8.557 1215040852 33195414 66.17319.680 5.3768.769 INCOME: < $1 ,000 $3,000$2,000$1,000 - $3,999$2,999$1,999 30404282233263234396 5.2834.9045.6705.976 1091013109 99749832 10.21212.270 9.3359.203 20430183912128719255 4.3594.1083.9244.542 2966223223962979 6.2584.7095.0556.286 $15,000$10,000 or- $14,999$6,000$4,000more - $9,999$5,999 108650135600141537 64040 18.87923.56224.59411.128 282761258217612 4539 26.46711.77716.485 4.248 104111123018113261 46428 22.21526.24924.167 9.906 1004014317 53817080 11.35421.18530.21014.939 Med.Median Per/Cap.BELOW Family POVERTY Income Income LEVEL: $10,346$2,747 $1,758$6,370 $11,258$3,163 $1,977$8,372 SOURCE:No.No.Faros of of families persons 65+ . w/children<6 Office of the Governor, Office of Information Services. 242704097917782 23.651 9.3274.047 20123 97618546 25.60344.94312.419 1572420856 8021 18.808 2.2235.781 137633045899 26.09514.788 8.282 SELECTED DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS FROM THE 1970 CENSUS FOR HARRIS COUNTY TABLE 14 (CONT.) HOUSING: Number TOTAL Percent Number NEGRO Percent Number WHITE & OTHERS Percent NumberSPANISH AMERICAN * Percent TRANSPORT. TO WORK: Med.Median value monthly owner rentocc $14,870 $111 $10,475 $83 $16,092 $123 $11,640 $87 OCCUPATIONS: OtherPublicPrivate trans. auto 609955 5028542038 86.853 5.9857.160 2386796125 8589 18.56174.758 6.679 513830 4169618171 89.564 7.2673.167 53065 51995351 83.415 8.1728.411 ManagersProfessional,Clerical & admin. Tech. & sales 20111212011963166 27.47716.411 8.630 1823910519 2960 13.275 2.1547.656 182873109600 60206 30.75910.12618.434 14859 63603333 22.558 9.6555.060 Semi-skilledExperiencedFarmCraftsmen workers & unemployedforemen 220967103710 20167 2675 30.19014.169 2.755 .365 1288386079 6019 692 62.652 9.3764.380 .503 134888 1414890827 1983 22.68815.277 2.379 .333 2796211333 1765 257 42.45017.205 2.679 .390 zi; w * Included in 'White & Others', see definitions. SELECTED DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS FROM THE 1970 CENSUS FOR FORT BEND COUNTY TOTAL TABLE 15 NEGRO WHITE & OTHERS SPANISH AMERICAN * EDUCATIONPOPULATION: COMPLETED: Number 52314 Percent100.000 Number 8854 Percent 16.924 Number 43460 Percent 83.075 13890Number Percent 26.551 High911<9 years yearsschool 11536 192052665123 20,69420.13245.335 7.545 23141032 108559 25.55713.84357.305 2.674 4091922218124707 21.98719.10943.077 8.464 3913 3545" 90 10.56878.922 1.8157.139 IN SCHOOL IN 1970: Vocational4 1-3or moreyrs. yrs,college col. 54241601 6.291 755 25 .619 46691576 7.361 663 77 1.553 CollegeHighElementaryPre-school school 10163 3616 678524 24.13767,839 4.5253.497 1737 772125 50 64,71628.763 4.6571.862 28448426 553474 6F,.52023.12 7 3.2544.497 3555 881218 39 18.77275.751 4.645 .831 INCOME: < $1,000 $2,000$1,000 - $2,999$1,999 10501155 948 6.6328.0807.346 284431434 18.48312.09518.356 664603616 5.5585.0485.156 155165181 6.0796.6695.711 $6,000$4,000$3,090 - $5,999$3,999$9,999 404129421775 870 28.27220.58312.418 6.086 522304205132 22.23112.947 5.6218.730 281035191471 665 23.52429.46012.314 5.567 569420897199 20.96533.05015.475 7.332 $15,000$10,000 -or $14,999 Med.Medianmore per/cap, Fam. Income income $1,424$2,183 1512 10.578 $4,258 $754 36 1.533 $1,713$8,833 1476 12.356 $6,547 $804 128 4.716 BELOW POVERTY LEVEL: No.Faros. of wfamiliespersons /children<6 65+ 15602149 771 39.98917.731 6.361 264549741 64.43615.00042.102 14081011 507 33.15813.590 4.893 199438745 29.62252.78517.415 TABLE 15 SELECTED DEMOGRAPHIC CHAPACTEPISTICS FROM THE 1970 CENSUS FOR FORT BEND COUNTY (CONT.) Number TOTAL Percent Number NEGRO Percent Number WHITE & OTHERS Percent NumberSPANISH AMERICAN * Percent HOUSING: Med.Median value monthly owner rent occ $12,822 $71 $6,697 S48 $13,970 $79 $9,125 $62 TRANSPORT. TO WORK: OtherPublicPrivate trans. auto 15247 2389 72 13.49186.102 .406 1967 a59 26 80.22018.719 1.060 13280 1930 46 87.04712.650 .301 3298 459 14 12.17187.456 .371 OCCUPATIONS: ClericalManagersProfessional, & admin.sales Tech. 326312871829 17.84510.002 7.038 181 7671 2.9537.0342.759 308212111758 19.61511.188 7.707 366142 83 9.4032.1323.648 ExperiencedFarmSemi-skilledCraftsmen workers & foremenunemployed 01514147079 398 1::.,.48838.714 2.176F.733 1729 217202 97 67.197 8.4337.8503.769 119753502813 301 17.90334.050 1.9157.618 2268 620296117 58.273Z;15.930 7.605.ff.3.006 * SOURCE: Included in 'White & Others', see definitions. Office of the Governor, Office of Information Serv:,ces. SELECTED DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS FROM THE 1970 TABLE 16 CENSUS FOR BRAZORIA COUNTY POPULATION: 108312Number TOTAL 100.000Percent Number 10725 NEGRO Percent 9.901 Number 97587 WHITE & OTHERS Percent90.098 NumberSPANISH AMERICAN10769 * Percent 9.942 EDUCATION COMPLETED: High9-11 schoolyears 9 years 175121244113676 22.22724.43331.287 27691354 813 15.60425.98853.147 166991108710907 32.89621.84121.486 2487 710549 16.88813.05859.157 IN SCHOOL IN 1970: Vocational4 1-3or moreyrs. yrs,college col. 15378 55896754 12.066 9.985 1216 113161 2.1683.090 14162 65935476 10.78712.988 264702194 6.2794.614 CollegeHighElementaryPre-school school 20554 211281062179 24.60062.377 6.4096.612 1809 118745203 25.91362.921 4.1047.060 18745 199473611976 24.47462.325 6.6296.570 2 429 118802200 22.59768.441 3.3245.635 INCOME: $3,000$2$1,000 ,000 - $2$3,999$1,999 ,999 01,000 1255142616071569 3.9674.5085.0804.960 188280426434 10.90716.59516.906 7.323 1067114610641135 3.6713.9433.6603.905 201117156 62 2.6436.6528.5714.989 $15,000$10,000 -or $14,999 $6$4,000more ,000 - $9$5,999 ,000 509998427977900 3 31.56324,97516.101 8.842 139596470 23.21718.309 5.414 984523277304 33.87325.130 8.006 405462757 32.28119.70117.270 Med.Median per/cap. fam. income income $10,434 $1,681 $5 071 1586 34 1.324 $10,750 $1 ,972 5059 17.406 $7839 b31 185 7.889 BELOW POVERTY LEVEL: No.No.Faros of of families w/children46persons 65+ 182226 97 786 31.280 2.9138.403 561261651 62.61114.04735.037 12681616 525 25.610 2.0906.433 110160338 33.63916,691 7,901 TABLE 16 SELECTED DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS TOTAL FROM NEGRO THE 19 70 CENSUS FOR WHITE & OTHERS HRAZORIA COUNTY (CONT.) SPANISH AMERICAN * HOUSING: Med.Median value monthly owner rent occ $13292Number $89 Percent Number$5,785 $';0 Percent $13,510Number $93 Percent $9,350Number $77 Percent TRANSPORT. TO WORK: OtherPublicPrivate Trans. auto 35090 3873 125 b.771 9,908 .319 2338 305 53 11,31386.721 1.965 32752 3568 72 89.997 9.804 .197 2697 560 13 82.47717.125 .397 OCCUPATIONS: ClericalManagersProfessional, & & salesadmin. Tech. 681164413054 16.66515.759 7.472 127 8584 2.7302.7634.128 672729596314 17.79916.706 7.855 325252 98 9.7422.9377.553 SemiExperiencedFarmCraftsmen - skilledworkers & unemployedforemen 14088 10598569 848 34,47020.966 2.5912.074 2211 205150214 71.879 6.6644.8766.957 11877 "6988355 854 22.10631.425 2.2591.846 1854 616102 89 55.57518.465 2.6673.057 *SOURCE: Included in 'White & Others', see definitions. Office of the Governor, Office of Information Services. 38

Table 17 Employment Status by Ethnic Group, Age, and Sex

TR TIT EMPLOYMENT STATUS TOTAL BLACK Spanish Other American White

Both Sexes 16 Years and Over

Civilian noninstitutional population 82,200 51,400 17,300 13,500 Civilian labor force 54,500 35,800 10,700 8,000 Civilian Labor force participation rate 66.3 69.6 61.8 59.3 Employed 50,000 32,300 10,000 7,600 Full time 35,000 21,900 7,400 5,700 Part time 11,800 8,300 2,000 1,400 With job but not working 3,100 2,100 600 400 Unemployed 4,500 3,400 700 400 Unemployment rate 8.3 9.5 6.5 5.0 Not in labor force 27,700 15,600 6,600 5,500

Men, 20 Years and Over

Civilian noninstitutional population 34,000 20,500 7,200 6,300 Civilian labor force 28,400 17,100 6,500 4,800 Civilian labor force participation rate 83.5 83.4 90.3 76.2 Employed 27,400 16,400 6,400 4,600 Full time 21,100 12,400 5,100 3,600 Part time 4,500 2,800 1,000 700 Unemployed 1,000 700 100 200 Unemployment rate 3.5 4.1 1.5 4.2 Not in labor force 5,600 3,400 700 1,500

Women, 20 Years and Over

Civilian noninstitutional population 38,800 25,300 7,300 6,300 Civilian labor force 20,800 15,500 2,700 2,600 Civilian labor force participation rate 53.6 61.3 37.0 41.3 Employed 18,900 14,000 2,500 2,400 Full time 11,800 8,400 1,700 1,800 Part time 5,800 4,700 600 500 Unemployed 1,800 1,500 200 100 Unemployment rate 8.7 9.7 7.4 3.8 Not in labor force 18,000 9,800 4,600 3,700

Both SexesL 16-19 Years Civilian noninstitutional population 9,400 5,600 2,800 1,000 Civilian labor force 5,300 3,200 1,500 700 Civilian labor force participation rate 56.4 57.1 53.6 70.0 Employed 3,700 2,000 1,200 500 Full time 2,000 1,100 600 300 Part time 1,500 900 500 200 Unemployed 1,600 1,200 300 100 Unemployment rate 30.2 37.5 20.0 14.3 Not in labor force 4,100 2,400 1,300 300 39

Table 18 Employment Status of Men Aged 20-64 Years, By Marital Status and Ethnic Group

MARITAL STATUS POPULATION 0 M'I' II EMPLOYED NOT IN NumberPercer-TEMT Number LABOR Poc!ulation Labor Force FORCE All Men Single 4,800 4,100 85,4 3,800 200 4,9 700 Married wife present 17,800 16,700 93.8 16,300 400 2.4 1,000 Married wife absent. 3,400 3,200 94.1 3,000 100 3.1 200 Widowed or divorced, 3,700 3,100 83.8 2,900 200 6.5 600

Negro Single 2,600 2,300 88.5 2,100 200 8.7 300 Married wife present10,300 9,600 93.2 9,300 300 3.1 700 Married wife absent, 2,600 2,300 88.5 2,200 100 4.3 200 Widowed or divorced, 2,300 2,000 87.0 1,900 100 5.0 300

Spanish American Single 700 600 (3 ) 600 0 (3 ) 100 Married wife present 5,000 4,800 96.0 4,700 100 2.1 200 Married wife absent, 700 700 (3 ) 700 0 (3) 0 Widowed or di vorced 300 200 (3 ) 200 0 (3) 0 Other White Single 1,400 1,100 78.6 1,100 0 0.0 200 Married wife present 2,500 2,300 92.0 2,200 100 4.3 200 Married wife absent, 200 200 (3) 200 0 (3) 0 Widowed or divorced, 1,100 800 72.7 800 100 (3) 200

(3) Percent distribution is not shown where base of percentage is 1,000 or below. 40

Table 19 Employment Status of Women Aged 20-64 Years, By Marital Status and Ethnic Group

LABOR FORCE MARITAL STATUS POPULATION NOT IN TrOIT, EMPLOYED NU e e$centot ercet0 LABOR Population Labor Force FORCE

All Women Single 3,600 2,800 77.8 2,500 300 10.7 800 Married husband present 18,100 8,900 49.2 7,900 1,000 11.2 9,200 Married husband absent 4,000 3,200 80.0 2,900 300 9.4 800 Widowed or divorced 6,700 4,800 71.6 4,600 200 4.2 1,900 Negro Single 2,500 1,800 72.0 1,600 300 16.7 700 Married husband present 10,600 6,400 60.4 5,700 800 12.5 4,200 Married husband absent 3,500 2,900 82.9 2,600 300 10.3 600 Widowed or divorced 4,900 3,500 71.4 3,400 100 2.9 1,400 Spanish American Single 700 600 (3) 600 0 (3) 100 Married husband present 4,900 1,500 30.6 1,300 200 13.3 3,500 Married husband absent 300 100 (3) 100 0 (3) 200 Widowed or divorced 700 400 (3) 400 0 (3) 300 Other White -7707T- 400 400 (3) 400 0 (3) 100 Married husband present 2,600 1,000 38.5 900 100 10,0 1,600 Married husband absent 200 100 (3) 100 0 (3) 0 Widowed or divorced 1,100 800 72.7 800 0 (3) 300

(3) Percent distribution is not shown where base of percentage is 1,000 or below. 41

Table 20 Employment Status of Men by Age, Educational Attainment, and Ethnic Group

YEARS OF SCHOOL POPULATION 0 EPL N P'LI'ED NOT IN COMPLETED Number Percent of Number Percent of LABOR Po ulation Labor Force FORCE

MEN 16-34 YEARS All Men 15,100 13,100 86.8 12,000 1,100 8.4 2,000 No school years completed 100 100 (3) 100 0 (3) 0 Elementary: 1-8 years...,3,800 3,300 86.8 3,000 300 9.1 400

High school: 1-4 years . 9,600 8,400 87.5 7,700 700 8.3 1,300

College: 1 or more years1,500 1,200 80.0 1,200 100 8.3 200 Median years completed.. 10.8 10.9 ... 10.9 10.4 ... 10.7

Negro 9,000 7,800 86.7 7,000 800 10.3 1,200 No school years completed 100 0 (3) 0 0 (3 ) 0 Elementary: 1-8 years 1,300 1,100 84.6 1,000 100 9.1 100 High school: 1-4 years .6,600 5,800 87.9 5,200 600 10.3 800 900 800 100 (3) 100 College: 1 or more years1,000 (3) Median years completed.. 11.2 11.4 ..0 11.4 11.2 ... 10.9

Spanish American 4,200 3,700 88.1 3,500 200 5,4 500 No school years completed 0 0 (3) 0 0 (3) 0 Elementary: 1-8 years .. 2,000 1,900 95.0 1,800 0 0.0 100 High school: 1-4 years 2,000 1,700 85.0 1,600 100 5.9 300

College: 1 or more years 100 100 (3) 100 0 (3) 0 Median years completed.. 9.2 8.8 Oe. 8.8 0 Oil. 10.4

Other White 1,800 1,600 88.9 1,500 100 6.3 300 ----757777:Iol years completed 0 0 (3) 0 0 (3) 0 Elementary: 1-8 years .. 400 300 (3) 200 0 (3 ) 0 High school: 1-4 years .1,100 1,000 90.9 900 0 (3 ) 100

College: 1 or more years 400 300 (3) 300 0 (3 ) 100 Median years completed.. 11.4 12.0 SOS 12.2 0 ... 12.5

(3) Percent distribution is not shown wherebase of percentage is 1,000 or below. 4?

Table 20 Employment Status of Men by Age, Educational Attainment, and Ethnic Group--Continued

LABOR FORCE YEARS OF SCHOOL POPULATION 'TOTAL EPPLOYED FIEWPWEIT NOT IN COMPLETED URYi7777T70 Number Percent oT LABOR EREAlation Labor Force FORCE

MEN 35 YEARS AND OVER All Men 23,100 18,100 78.4 17,600 600 3.3 5,000

--Po school years completed . 1,600 800 50.0 800 0 (3) 800 Elementary: 1-8 years 12,200 9,100 74.6 9,000 200 2.2 3,000 High school: 1-4 years 7,400 6,400 36.5 6,200 200 3.1 900

College: 1 or more years 2,000 1,700 85.0 1,600 100 5.9 300 Median years completed 8.1 8.5 .04 8.4 12.0 ... 5.9

Negro 14,000 10,900 77.9 10,500 400 3.7 3,100

10 school years completed . 600 200 (3) 200 0 (3) 400 Elementary: 1-8 years 7,300 5,200 71.2 5,100 200 3.8 2,00C High school: 1-4 years 4,800 4,400 91.7 4,200 200 4.5 400

College: 1 or more years . 1,400 1,100 78.6 1,100 0 0.0 200 Median years completed 8.4 9.0 OS. 8.9 9.0 .00 5.8

S apish American 4,200 3,600 85.7 3,600 0 0.0 600

---N-OSal6orl-Years completed . 800 500 62.5 500 0 0.0 300 Elementary: 1-8 years 2,600 2,400 92.3 2,400 0 0.0 200 High school: 1-4 years 700 500 (3) 500 0 (3) 0 College: 1 or more years 100 100 (3) 100 0 (3) 0 Median years completed 4.6 5.3 ... 5.3 0 4041 1.0

Other White 4,930 3,600 73.5 3,400 200 5.6 1,300 No school years completed 200 0 (3) 0 0 (3) 100 Elementary: 1-8 years 2,300 1,600 69.6 1,500 0 0.0 800 High school: 1-4 years 1,900 1,500 78,9 1,400 0 0.0 400

College: 1 or more years 500 500 (3) 400 0 (3) 100 Median years completed 8.8 9.6 04-0 9.7 0 401. 7.5

(3) Percent distribution is not shown where base of percentage is 1,000 or below. 43

Table 21 Employment Status of Women by Age, Educational Attainment, and Ethnic Group

LABOR- RACE NOT YEARS OF SCHOOL POPULATION TOTAL EMPLOYED -UNEMPLOYED IN COMPLETED Number Percent of NumberPercent of LABOR Po ulation Labor Force FORCE

WOMEN 16-34 YEARS All Women 17,600 10,400 59.1 8,100 2,300 22.1 7,300 NO school years completed. 0 0 (3) 0 0 ( 3) 0 Elementary: 1-8 years.... 3,700 1,500 40.5 1,100 300 20.0 2,100 High school: 1-4 years...12,100 7,600 62.8 5,900 1,800 23.7 4,500 College: 1 or more years. 1,800 1,300 72.2 1,100 200 15.4 600 Median years completed.... 11.1 11.8 666 12.1 11.1 ... 10.4

Negro 11,700 7,600 65.0 5,800 1,800 23.7 4,100 No school years completed. 0 0 (3) 0 0 (3) 0 Elementary: 1-8 years.... 1,300 700 53.8 500 200 (3 ) 700 High school: 1-4 years... 8,700 5,800 66.7 4,300 1,400 24.1 2,900 College: 1 or more years. 1,600 1,100 68.8 900 200 18.2 500 Median years completed.... 11.7 12.0 866 12.1 11.3 666 11.0

S anish American 4,500 1,900 42.2 1,600 400 21.1 2,600 o sc ool years completed. 0 0 0 0 (3 ) 0 Elementary: 1-8 years.... 2,000 700 35.0 500 200 (3) 1,300 High school: 1-4 years... 2,400 1,200 50 0 1,000 200 16.7 1,300 College: 1 or more years. 100 0 Z3) 0 0 (3) 0 Median years completed.... 9.5 10.2 ... 10.7 9.0 4.6 9.0

Other White 1,400 800 57.1 700 100 (3) 600 -TTo scho1 years completed. 0 0 (3 ) 0 0 (3 ) 0 Elementary: 1-8 years.... 300 100 (3 ) 100 0 (3 ) 200 High school: 1-4 years... 900 600 (3 ) 500 0 (3 ) 300 College: 1 or more years. 200 100 (3 ) 100 0 (3 ) 100 Median years completed.... 12.0 12.2 ... 12.1 0 644 10.5 44

Table 21 Employment Status of Women by Age, Educational Attainment, and Ethnic Group--Continued

LABOR FORCE NUT YEARS OF SCHOOL POPULATION TOTAL, lanOTED UNEMPLOYED IN COMPLETED Number lercent of NumberPercent of LABOR Po ulation Labor Force FORCE

WOMEN 35 YEARS AND OVER All Women 26,400 12,900 48.9 12,300 600 4.7 13,400 No school years completed 1,900 400 21.1 400 0 (3) 1,500 Elementary: 1-8 years... 12,700 5,100 40.2 4,900 200 3.9. 7,500 High school: 1-4 years.. 10,000 6,300 63.0 5,900 300 4.8 3,800

College: 1 or more years 1,800 1,200 66.7 1,100 0 0.0 600

Median years completed... 8.4 9.7 1144 9.6 10.5 ... 7.1

Nero 16,700 9,500 56.9 9,000 400 4.2 7,200 400 No school years completed 600 200 3 200 0 (3) Elementary: 1-8 years... 7,800 3,600 46.2 3,600 100 2.8 4,000 High school: 1-4 years.. 6,900 4,700 68.1 4,400 300 6.4 2,300 College: 1 or more years 1,400 900 64.3 900 0 ( 3) 500 Median years completed... 8.9 9.9 046 9.7 10.5 ... 8.0

Spanish American 4,300 1,400 32.6 1,400 100 7.1 2,800 Jo school years completed 1,100 200 18.2 200 0 (3) 900 Elementary: 1-8 years... 2,600 800 30.8 800 0 (3) 1,700 High school: 1-4 years.. 600 400 3 400 0 (3) 200 College: 1 or more years 0 0 3 0 0 (3) 0 Median years completed... 4.4 6.7 *et 6.7 0 0.6 3.2

Other White 5,400 2,000 37.0 2,000 100 5.0 3,400 No school years completed 200 0 3 0 0 (3) 200 Elementary: 1-8 years... 2,400 600 25.0 600 0 (3) 1,800 High school: 1-4 years.. 2,500 1,200 48.0 1,100 0 0.0 1,300

College: 1 or more years 300 300 3 300 0 (3) 100 Median years completed... 9.2 10.9 06. 11.3 0 ... 8,4

(3) Percent distribution is not shown where base of percentage is 1,000 or below. 45

Table 22 Unemployment During Previous Year by Ethnic Group, Age, and Sex

(Percent distribution)

WEEKS OF UNEMPLOYMENT TOTAL BLACK Spanisfi Other American White Both Sexes16 Years and Over Tota wor ing oroo ing or work 62,100 41,000 12,300 8,900 Percent with unemployment 24.6 26.6 23.6 18.0 Total with unemployment: Number 15,300 10,900 2,900 1,600 Percent 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 1-4 weeks 51.0 48.6 56.7 53.3 5-14 weeks 27.5 26.6 26.7 33.3 15-26 weeks 13.1 15.6 10.0 6.7 27 weeks or more 8.5 9.2 6.7 6.7 len20Y2arsandOve- Tot-671TETT746FT65064 for work 29,700 17,800 6,800 5,100 Percent with unemployment 17.2 18,5 14.7 15.7 Total with unemployment: Number 5,100 3,300 1,000 800 Percent 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 1-4 weeks 46.2 46.9 (3) (3) 5-1aweeks 26.9 25.0 (3) ( 3) 15-26 weeks 17.3 18.8 (3) ( 3) 27 weeks or more 9,6 9.4 (3) ( 3) Women) 20 Years and Over Total working or looking for work 24,900 18,400 3,600 2,900 Percent with unemployment 24.1 25.5 25,0 13.8 Total with unemployment: Number 6,000 4,700 900 400 Percent 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 1-4 weeks 49.2 46.8 (3) (3) 5-14 weeks 29.5 29.8 (3) (3) 15-26 weeks 11,5 12.8 (3) (3) 27 weeks or more.. 9.8 10.6 (3) (3) Both Sexes, 16-19 Years Total working or looking for work 7,600 4,800 2,000 800 Percent with unemployment 55.3 60.4 50.0 50.0 Total with unemployment: Number 4,200 2,900 1,000 400 Percent 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 1-4 weeks 57.1 53.3 (3) (3) 5-14 weeks 23.8 23.3 (3) (3) 15-26 weeks 11.9 13.3 (3) (3) 27 weeks or more 7.1 10.0 (3) (3)

(3) Percent distribution is not shown where base of percentage is 1,000 or below. Table 23 Employed Persons By Industry Group, Ethnic Group, Age, and Sex Men, 20 Years Percent distribution) omen, ears INDUSTRY GROUP TOTAL BLACK and over Spanish LIT L. Of Fier TOTAL BLACK and over -SpanisF Other NumberPercent 27,400 100.0 16,400 100.0 American 6,400100.0 100.04,600White 18,900 100.0 14,000 100.0 American 2,500100.0 2,400White100.0 Wage and Salary WorkersPrivate 87.194.4 94.8 90.996.6 :1-10.'F(89.8 82.193.8 82.394.7 83.593.1 89.478.9 MiningAgricultureConstruction 15.3 1.3 .8 87.315.8 1.7 .7 18.2 .7.6 9.61.1 .5 .2.1.2 0.0 .1 0.00.0 .5 1.0 .5 ManufacturingTransportation ard Public Utilities 23.219.911.4 20.512.1 32.915.3 7.2 14.915.419.0 19.4 6.51.9 16.6 3.0 .9 28.419.0 1.4 26.614.0 7.6 WholesaleServiceFinance, Industries andInsurance, Retail Businessand Real andEstate 13.0 2.3 22.511.5 2.5 13.2 1.7 17.9 2.4 51.5 2.3 60.2 1.4 29.4 4.9 24.1 4.6 PersonalPrivate HouseholdsService Repair(Not Households) 3.35.2 .8 2.71.33.4 6.04.5 .2 10.4 0.04.1 27.710.2 1.6 11.735.1 1.0 6.86.44.9 5.06.21.6 MedicalEducational and Hospital .9.3 2.91.0 .1 1.5 .6.6 1.81.2 .3 1.98.61.5 2.08.71.6 9.90.01.4 2.05.P.2.6 Unpaid5c:if-Employed Family Workers Government All Other 2.45.57.3 .1 5.07.5 .1 0.03.45.7 10.2 0.09.0 11.8 5.5 .7 12.4 4.7 .6 0.06.99.6 10.5 2.08.6 Employed Persons by (percent distribution) Occupation, Ethnic Group, Table 24 Age, and Sex OCCUPATION TOTAL _Men, 20 BLACK ears and over Spanish WHITE Other TOTAL Women BLACK 20 Years and Spanish over lath IL 17-05er PercentNun 3e .,/..... 100.0 American 100.0 White100,0 100.9 100.0 American 100.0 White100.0 Woite-Collar WorkersManagersProfessional and Techni cal 15.0 4.33.5 13,8 4.12.8 1.32.48.9 27.3 7.7 25.9 5.9 19.0 5.6 35.3 3.8 56.1 9.7 Blue-Collar Workers.-CraftsmenSalesClerical Workers andWorkers 72.1 5.91.? 71.4 5.81.1 81.1 1.14.1 62,2 1.59.18.9 15.314.2 2.23.0 12.9 2.19.42.0 23,7 2.95.4 13.933.1 6.65.6 re0anicsCarpenters and ConstructionandForemen 18.8 7.0 12.9 5.3 25.8 9.4 10.030.1 1.0 .1.8 1.4 1.5 CperativesAll Other Repairmen . 6,75.0 3.83.9 10.2 6.3 12.7 7 5 .7._ 9 .5.2 0.00.0 0.0 .5 LaundryDrivers and and Dry CleaningDeli verymen 10.932.4 13.534.0 34.3 6.1 24.-1 8.2 13.7 .5 11.4 .6 28.3 1.4 .5 11.9 0.01.0 Service Workersun-armPrivate AllLaborers Others Household ...... 12.320.920.6 .9 24.513.919.2 1.2 20.927.5 9,8 .8 10.215,1 0.07.8 58.8 8.05.1 .7 68.0 6.34.5 .8 34.425.9 1.9 .5 10.4 1.5 .5 Other Service WorkersCharwomen, janitorsand Porters 12.3 5.50.0 13.8 7.9 .1 3.19.80.0 10.2 0.0 .4 31.327.4 33.035.0 28.0 6.4 ?4.930.1 5.2 ProtectiveKitchenWaiters, Helpers CooksBartenders and 2.7 .8 3.0 .7 1.12.9 1.4 .9 2.39.31.6 2.89.8 .5 6.71.46.3 8.93.1 .5 Farm Workers All Other 2.21.2 .6 2.0 .9.3 1."1.1 .2 3.34.3 .3 18.1 0.00.0 19.9n.o0.0 13."-; 0.00.0 12.4 0.00.0 4E

SUBSIDY VS. WELFARE

The Texas Office of Economic Opportunity report indicated that there were 2.5 million Texans who were below the poverty line in 1971.

These individuals, in the main, were children and older people. They were predominantlY black and Mexican-American, and most were not on welfare.

A Houston Chronicle (April 3, 1973) report revealed that more government funds are channeled into farm subsidies than welfare.

"Texas landowners received $525 million last year in agriculture subsidy payments from the United States government, more than the state received in federal welfare funds," the report said. Fifteen persons and two state agencies, including the Texas Department of

Corrections, were paid more than $100,000 each. The Texas Department of Corrections received $553,813 in incentive payments for not growing crops. Total agriculture subsidies for Texas amounted to $525.7 million; the Department of Public Welfare received only $462.5 million for public assistance payments and program administration from the federal government. A substantial proportion of the funds received are allocated for disability payments and assistance for children and the aged.

Black Representative Barbara Jordan, a freshman Democratic

House member from Houston, Texas, questioned the imbalance in federal payments. "I recognize that the farmer needs help, but at this point in time of rising food costs and rising prices we still see that the 49

farmer comes in for protection by the federal government," she said.

The dynamic and able Congresswoman went further in her concern. She

said that "though Nixon has moved to cut social service programs

sharply, saying that cuts would fight inflation, he has not made

the definitive proposal on farm subsidies which could have the same

effect on the economy." (Houston Chronicle, April 4, 1973.)

EMPLOYMENT AND OCCUPATIONAL DATA

Unemployment and Underemployment: Houston

The best data on unemployment and subemployment in Houston were

compiled by a report of the United States Department of Labor and

published in 1971. The information contained in the Urban Employ-

ment Survey covered about 26 percent of the black civilian force

in the total SMSA.

"As is the case nationally, the aggregate unemployment figures

for the Houston Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area conceal the

high concentration of unemployment in the central city areas and

in the minority laborforce."3 The findings for Houston are presented

in Tables 25 through 31; the statistics include information for selected years, 1967-1969.

The nonwhite unemployment rate included in the tables is about

99 percent black since the Spanish surname category is included in the

white rate. From the data presented, it appears that the black labor ;r,

Table 25 ANNUAL MONEY INCOME BY ETHNIC GROUP AND FAMILY STATUS IN THE "ORIGINAL CEP AREA" OF THE HOUSTON LABOR MARKET, JULY 1968-JUNE 1969

(Percent distribution)

Money Income Total Black Mexican Anglo American

Families (2 or more members) Total: Number 28,400 18,400 6,100 4,000 Percent 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 $0 to $3,499 28.9 35.3 16.7 19.5 $3,500 to $4,999 18.3 17.9 20.0 14.6 $5,000 to $7,999 30.3 28.8 35.0 31.7 $8,000 to 59,999 10.6 8.7 13.3 14.6 $10,000 or more 12.0 9.2 15,0 19.5 Median income 55,200 $4,700 $6,000 $6,600

Families (4 or more members) Total: Number 13,100 8,300 3,900 1,100 Percent 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 $0 to 53,499 21.2 28.8 10.3 21.4 $3,500 to $4,999 16.7 16.3 15.4 14.3 $5,000 to $7,999 32.6 31.3 35.9 14.3 $8,000 to 59,999 12.9 11.3 17.9 21.4 $10,000 or more 16.7 12.5 20.5 28.6 Median income $6,000 S5,400 $6,800 $8,000

Unrelated individuals Total: Number 16,700 10,600 1,500 4,500 Percent 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 $0 to $3,499 66.7 71.4 73.3 56.8 $3,500 to $4,999 16.1 15.2 20.0 20.5 $5,000 to $7,999 12.5 10.5 6.7 15.9 $8,000 to $9,999 2.4 1.9 0 2.3 $10,000 or more 2.4 1.0 0 4.5 Median income $2,300 $2,200 52,400 $3,100

Note: The figures for Mexican Americans include "other Spanish surname Americans" used in Bureau of Labor Statistics tables. Sums of individual items may not equal totals because of rounding.

Source: Urban Employment Survey for July 1968-June 1969, U.S. Department of Labor. 51

Table 26 ESTIMATED UNEMPLOYMENT LEVELS AND RATES IN HOUSTON SMSA AND CENTRAL CITY AREA, ANNUAL AVERAGES, 1967 THROUGH 1969

Category Total White Black and other Races

Unemployment SMSA

Level: 1967 22,000 13,000 9,000 1968 22,000 14,000 8,000 1969 23,000 13,000 9,000

Rate: 1967 3.3 2.4 6.3 1968 3.3 2.6 5.7 1969 3.2 2.3 6.7

Unemployment central city

Level: 1967 20,000 11,000 9,000 1968 18,000 9,000 8,000 1969 17,000 8,000 9,000

Rate: 1967 3.7 2.7 6.3 1968 3.4 2.5 5.8 1969 3.3 2.1 6.6

Note: In this table only, the SMSA definition is that used by the State employment security agency based upon 1960 definitions of the SMSA.Hence, the SMSA is Harris County alone. Sums of individual items may not equal totals because of rounding.

Source: Manpower Report of the President, 1968, Manpower Report of the

President, 1970, and nen._.._2__y_____IdE..aL_g,__.aninsAH1157m1cirL , p.5. 52

Table 27 EMPLOYMENT STATUS BY ETHNIC GROUP, AGE, AND SEX IN THE "ORIGINAL CEP AREA OF THE HOUSTON LABOR !'IAP.KET , JULY 1968-JUNE 1969

Employment status Total Black Mexican Anglo Ameri can Both sexes'ILL o,_-. Civilian noninStitutionalpopuTW on 82,200 51,400 17,300 13,500 Civilian labor force 54,500 35,800 10,700 8,000 vi 1 i an labor force parti :i pati on rate 66.3 69.6 61.8 59.3 Employed 50,000 32,300 10,000 7,600 Full time 35,000 21 ,900 7,400 5,700 Part time 11,800 8,300 2,000 1,400 With job but not working 3,100 2,100 600 400 Unemployed 4,500 3,400 700 100 Unemployment rate 8.3 9.5 6.5 5.0 Not in labor force 27,700 15,600 6,600 5,500 Men, 20 years and over Civilian noninstitutional population 34,000 20,500 7,200 6,300 Civilian labor force 28,400 17,100 5,500 4,800 Civilian labor force participation rate 83.5 83.4 90.3 75.2 Employed *27,409 *16,400 *6,400*4,600 Full time 21,100 12,400 5,100 3,600 Part time 4,500 2,800 1,000 700 Unemployed 1,000 700 100 200 Unemployment rate 3.5 4.1 1.5 4.2 Not in labor force 5,600 3,400 700 1,500 Women, 20 years and over Civilian noninstitutional population 38,800 25,300 7,300 6,300 Civilian labor force 20,300 15,500 2,700 2,600 Civilian labor force participation rate 53.6 61.3 37.0 41.3 Employed * 18,900 *14,000 *2,500 *2,400 Full time 11,800 8,400 1,700 1,600 Part time 5,800 4,700 600 500 Unemployed 1 ,800 1,500 200 100 Unemployment rate 8.7 9.7 7.A 3.8 Not i n labor force 18,000 9,800 4,600 3,700 Both sexes, 16 to 19 years Civilian noninstitutional population 9,400 5,600 2,800 1,000 Civilian labor force 5,300 3,200 1,500 700 Ci vi 1 i an1 abor force participation rate 56.4 57,1 53.6 70.0 Employed * 3,700 * 2,090 *1,200* 500 Ful 1time 2,000 1 ,100 600 300 Part time 1,509 900 500 200 Unemployed 1,600 1,200 300 100 Unemployment rate 30.2 37.5 20.0 11.3 Not in labor force 4,100 2,100 1,300 300

*Includes "with job but not working," not shown separately. Note:Sums of individual items may not equal totals because of rounding. Source:Urban Emploment Survey, U.S. Department of I.abor. 53

TABLE 28 UNEMPLOYMENT EXPERIENCE DURING PREVIOUS YEAR BY ETHNIC GROUP, AGE, AND SEX IN THE "ORIGINAL CEP AREA" OF THE HOUSTON LABOR MARKET, JULY 1968-JUNE 1969

(Percent distribution)

Weeks of unemployment Total Black Mexican Analo American

Both sexes, 16 years and over Total working or looking for work 62,100 41,000 12,300 8,900 Percent with unemployment 24.6 26.6 23.6 18.0 Total with unemployment: Number 15,300 10.900 2,900 1,600 Percent. 100.0 100.0 100.9 100.0

1 to 4 weeks 51.0 48.6 56.7 53.3 5 to 14 weeks 27.5 26.6 26.7 33.3 15 to 26 weeks 13.1 15.6 10.0 6.7 27 weeks or more 8.5 9.2 6.7 6.7

Men, 20 years and over Total working or loOking for work 29,700 17,800 6,800 5,100 Percent with unemployment 17.2 18.5 14.7 15.7 Total with unemployment: Number 5,100 3,300 1,000 800 Percent. 100,0 100.0 100.0 100.0

1 to 4 weeks 46.2 46.9 ( *) (*) 5 to 14 weeks 26.9 25.0 (*) (* ) 15 to 26 weeks 17.3 18.8 (*) *) 27 weeks or more 9.6 9.4 (*) )

Women, 20 years and over Total working or looking for work 24,900 18,400 3,600 2,900 Percent with unemployment 24.1 25.5 25.0 13.8 Total with unemployment: Number 6,000 4,700 900 400 Percent. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

1 to 4 weeks 49.2 46.8 (*) (*) 5 to 14 weeks 29.5 29.8 (*) ',*) 15 to 26 weeks 11.5 12.8 (*) (*) 27 weeks or more 9.8 10.6 (*) (*\,

Both sexes, 16 to 19 years Total working or looking for work 7,600 4,800 2,000 800 Percent with unemployment 55.3 60.4 50.0 50.0 Total with unemployment: Number 4,200 2,900 1,000 400 Percent. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

1 to 4 weeks 57.1 53.3 (*., (*) 5 to 14 weeks 23.8 23.3 (*) (*) 15 to 26 weeks 11.9 13.3 (*) (*) 27 weeks or more 7.1 10.0 (*) (*)

*Percent distribution is not shown because base is 1,000 or less.

Note: Sums of individual items may not equal totals because of rounding.

Source: Urban Employment Survey, U.S. Department of Labor. 54

TABLE 29 REASONS NOT LOOKING AND FUTURE JOBSEEKING INTENTIONS OF PERSONS NOT IN THE LABOR FORCE WHO WANT A JOB NOW, BY ETHNIC GROUP, IN THE "ORIGINAL CEP AREA" OF THE HOUSTON LABOR MARKET, JULY 1968-JUNE 1969

(Percent distribution)

Reasons not looking for work Total Black Mexican Intend to American Anglo look in next 12 months

Total: Number 9,500 5,500 2,900 1,100 6,100 Percent 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Retirement, old age, or school 21.1 23.6 17.2 27.3 23.0 Family responsibilities 23.2 21.8 31.0 18.2 23.0 Health 25.3 29.1 17.2 27.3 21.3 Looked but couldn't Lind a job 4.2 3.6 6.9 0 4.9 Transportation 5.3 3.6 6.9 9.1 4.9 Too old or young 3.2 1.8 3.4 9.1 3.3 Lack of skill, experience, or education 10.5 9.1 10.3 9.1 11.5 Lack of references, police record 1.1 1.8 0 0 1.6 Other reasons 6.3 5.5 6.9 0 6.6

Note: SUM of individual items may not equal totals because of rounding.

Source: Urban Employment Survey, U.S. Department of Labor. 55

Table 30 Reasons Not Looking and Future Jobseeking Intentions of Persons Not in the Labor Force Who Want a Job Now, by Ethnic Group and Sex

Percent distribution

REASONS NOT TOTAL BLACK Spanish Other Intend to look LOOKING FOR WORK American White in next 12 months

Both Sexes, 16 years and over Yotal reasons: Number 9,500 5,500 2,900 1,100 6,100 Percent 100,0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Retirement, old age or school. 21.1 23.6 17.2 27.3 23.0 Family responsibilities 23.2 21.8 31.0 18.2 23.0 Health 25.3 29.1 17.2 27.3 21.3 Looked but couldn't find a job 4.2 3,6 6.9 0.0 4.9 Transportation 5.3 3.6 6.9 9.1 4.9 Too old or young 3.2 1.8 3.4 9.1 3.3 Lack of skill, experience or education 10.5 9.1 10.3 9.1 11.5 Lack of references, police record 1.1 1.8 0.0 0.0 1.6 Other reasons 6.3 5.5 6.9 0.0 6.6 Men, 16 years and over Total reasons: Number 2,300 1,300 400 200 1,700 Percent 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Retirement, old age or school. 39.1 46.2 (3) ( 3) 41.2 Family responsibilities 0.0 0.0 (3) (3) 0.0 Health 34.8 38.5 (3) ( 3) 29.4 Looked but couldn't find a job 4.3 0.0 (3) (3) 5.9 Transportation 4.3 0.0 (3) (3) 0.0 Too old or young 4.3 7.7 (3) (3) 5.9 Lack of skill, experience or education 4.3 7.7 (3) (3) 5.9 Lack of references, police record 0.0 0.0 (3) (3) 0.0 Other reasons 8.7 0.0 (3) (3) 11.8 t'l°r1,42.1EL...a...11121T: ota reasons: Number 7,200 4,400 2,200 600 4,600 Percent 100,0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Retirement, old age or school, 15.3 15.9 13.6 (3) 15.2 Family responsibilities 30.6 27.3 40.9 (3) 30.4 Health 22.2 25,0 13.6 (3) 17.4 Looked but couldn't find a job 4.2 4.5 4.5 (3) 4.3 Transportation 5.6 4.5 4.5 (3) 6.5 Too old or young 1,4 2.3 0.0 (3) 2.2 Lack of skill, experience or education 12.5 11.4 13.6 (3) 15,2 Lack of references, police record 1.4 2.3 0.0 3) 2,2 Other reasons 6.9 6.8 9.1 3) 6.5

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Labor, "Statistical Tables," Poverty in Houston's Central City (February, 1970). Table 31 Weekly EarningsL by Ethnic Group and Sex Percent distribution) K W H I Tota '4EEKLY EARNINGS'ersons SexesHot Male Female SexesBoth Male Female SexesBot -14F775-Tican Male Female Sexes Both Male Female $PercentNu 49 and under er 46,800 100.0 26.9 27,700 100.0 11.6 19,100 100.0 47.8 30,200 100.0 32.0 16,400 100.0 12.9 13,800 100.0 53.8 100.09,400 15.7 6,700100.0 9.5 2,700100.0 28.0 100.07,200 19.4 100.04,700 10.5 2,500100.0 33.3 $100-149$ 75-9950-6465-74 20.619.715.2 9.1 30.826.4 9.2 10.623.9 6.19.4 17.619.116,5 9.0 29.329.310.2 9.5 24.2 8.37.63.8 27.023.611.213.5 27.034.9 7.9 16.028.016.0 8.0 24.217.711.3 8.1 28.918.4 5.37.9 20.816.7 5.3 SchedulesPersonsearningsMedian$150 and weeklyon over 'rull-Time $738.4 12.8 $92 2.2$51 5.8$66 $878.8 2.3$46 9.0$85 12.7 $98 $634.0 19.4 $88 28.9$117 $624.2 Number$Percent 50-6449 aid under 35,000 100.0 16.314.4 22,400 100.0 8.04.0 120700 100.0 30.331.9 21,900 100.0 18.2 13,100 100.0 7.85.2 100.08,800 32.538.6 7,400100.0 13.7 5.5 100.05,500 9.41.9 100.01,900 29.417.6 5,700100.0 12.010.0 100.03,800 6.53.2 100.01,900 17.623.5 $ $150$100-149$65-74 75-99 and over 25.123.510.3 28.635.214.6 9.5 14.311.8 8.43.4 21.723.211.1 7.6 33.932.210.4 10.8 9.62.46.0 26.011.032.9 28.313.239.6 7.5 11.817.6 5.9 22.028.018.010.0 32.335.516.1 6.5 23.517.611.8 5.9 earningsMedianSOURCE: weekly U.S.City Department (February, of 1970); Labor, "Statistical Tables," Poverty $83 $100 $59 $77 $95 $55 $93 $103 in Houston's Central $70 $97 $129 $73 57

force is concentrated in the central city, and this rate vacillates between 9.5 on the average to 15.0 percent in some areas with high concentrations of black youths.

The overall labor force particiiation rate for blacks of 69.6 percent masks a great diversity of experience between the various subgroups. In the age group, 20 years and over, approximately 83.4 percent of black men are in the labor force. This figure is higher than the national figure for this same period. The overall national figure for this age group among young black men approximates about

81 percent. Tables 32, 33, and 34 show employment characteristics for blacks in Houston. Information is presented in Appendix B to provide basic labor force data by age, sex, and ethnic group for

Texas and the SMSA's of Dallas and Houston and their central cities.

National Unemployment

The unemployment rate for black and other races and for whites declined considerably during the 1960's, after a sharp rise during the 1961 recession. In 1970, however, unemployment worsened, reach- ing the 1965 rate for blacks and other minorities, and near the 1964 rate for whites. Unemployment rates for blacks and other minorities were about double those for whites throughout the 1960's and 80 percent higher in 1970 (a ratio of 1.8:1) when the increase in white unemployment was somewhat sharper than that of blacks and other races. Table 35 reflects these trends. 58

Table 32 Employment Characteristics of Residents of Houston by Race - 1970

Em lo ment Status Total Black S anish

Malet.161 over 639,618 111,087 60,690 Labor force 525,630 82,702 50,937 Percent of total 82,2 74.4 83.9 Civilian labor force 523,526 82,477 50,682 Employed 516,900 79,274 49,475 Unemployed 12,626 3,203 1,207 Percent of civilian labor force 2.4 "1.9 2.4 Not in labor force 113,988 28,3'35 9,753 Inmate of institution 9,747 4,003 1,049 Enroll ed in school 40,720 8,098 4,207 Other: Under 65 yrs. 30,415 9,265 2,652 65 yrs and over 33,106 7.019 1,045

Female..3.l6 rs, and over 684,402 124,966 60,405 Labor force 298,566 65,373 23,366 Percent of total 43.6 52.3 38.7 Civilian labor force 298,472 65,355 23,359 Employed 286,521 61,224 22,358 Unemployed 11,951 4,131 1,001 Percent of civilian labor force 4.0 6.3 4.3 Not in labor force 385,836 59,593 37,039 Inmate of institution 4,296 485 91 Enrol led in school 45,937 9,964 4,628 Other: Under 65 yrs. 277,7C5 39,134 29,499 65 yrs. and over 57,807 10,010 2,821

, 16 to 21 years of 20,129 12,056 Not enrolled in s7F5-1 9,199 5,601 Not high school grad. 5,552 4,160 Unemployed or not in labor force 2,494 1,113

Marital Status and Presence of Own Children Women, 16 yrs. and over 684,402 124,966 60,405 With own di i ldren under 6 yrs, 151,592 30,595 20,936 In labor force 52,036 16,816 6,239 Wi th own children 6 to 17 yrs. only 152,092 24,728 12,781 In labor force 74,039 15,706 5,388

Married women, husband present 438,752 63,469 40,062 In labor force --- 33,596 13,455 Wi th own children under 6 yrs. 134,501 22,072 19,291 In labor force 40,438 11,472 5,227 li th own chi ldren 6 to 17 yrs. only 131,065 17,299 11,045 In labor force 57,645 10,128 4,323 59 Table 33

Employment Characteristics of the Population of Houston 1970

Total Total Black Total Urban Total :lack Urban Spanish Spanish

Percent in Labor Force 717.T=1777Fs 12.4 12.9 13.6 14.2 16 and 17 years 35.9 26.3 27.7 37.7 41.7 18 and 19 years 62.6 53.3 51.5 67.9 68.8 20 and 21 years 77.6 73.9 78.8 82.0 84.6 22 to 24 years 87.0 79,8 87.1 89.2 90.8 25 to 34 years 94.5 89.0 93.9 94.4 96.2 35 to 44 years 95.9 91.2 93.4 95.6 96.5 45 to 64 years 90.4 83.5 84.5 91.2 90.6 65 years & older 30.5 27.2 27,8 34.2 34.2

Female: 14 and 15 yrs. 5.1 4.9 5.3 5.7 16 and 17 years 18.5 13.7 13.6 19.9 21.6 18 and 19 years 46.7 38.2 39.9 41.2 42.3 20 and 21 years 55.8 55.3 56.6 49.8 52.6 22 to 24 years 56.9 62.7 63.8 45.6 48.2 25 to 34 years 47.6 66.5 67.7 42.2 45.4 35 to 44 years 50.3 65,1 65.9 44.0 46.0 45 to 64 years 46.6 54.1 55,1 35.6 36.4 65 years & over 11.8 14.5 15.8 8.2 8.3

Workers in1 96913,LLeeks

Male: 16 yrs & over 561,808 89,248 53,527 50 to 52 weeks 390,710 52,835 34,764 27 to 49 weeks 108,785 24,419 12,647 26 weeks or less 62,313 11,994 6,116

Female: 16 yrs & over 358,754 74,720 29,129 50 to 52 weeks 153,978 28,850 11,368 27 to 49 weeks 104,505 26,429 8,369 26 weeks or less 100,271 19,441 9,392 60

Table 34 Employment Characteristics of the Population of Houston - 1970

Total Black Total Urban Class of Worker.) 16 yrs. & overTotal Black Urban Spanish Spanish ale employed 510,900 79,274 6 7,452 49,475 35,098 Private wage or sl aary workers 424,294 65,776 55,887 42,539 30,373 Government workers 44,218 9,154 7,982 4,248 2,880 Local government workers 20,507 4,181 3,526 c,166 1,376 Self employed workers 41,491 4,279 3,521 2,585 1,742 Unpaid family workers 897 65 62 103 103

FemalL?e22...1employed 286,521 61,224 52,968 22,358 16,993 Government workers 42,248 10,679 9,581 2,515 1,809 Local government workers 25,799 6,035 5,420 1,327 931 Self employed workers 12 ,740 1,877 1,489 540 455 Unpaid family workers 3,031 177 155 140 96

Male employed in agriculture 8,268 2,091 1,218 986 338 i ge or salary workers 4,599 1,362 678 747 240 1 f employed workers 3,529 729 540 239 98 Unpaid family workers 140

Female employed in agriculture 1,404 258 193 82 18 Wage or salary workers 874 214 155 71 7 Self employed workers 427 34 28 11 11 Unpaid family workers 103 10 10 ____

LaborMollales_

Male 30 to 49 yrs old in 1970 246,732 40,282 33,606 23,519 16,240 Nonworker in 1965, nonworker in 19 70 6,347 2,433 1,556 588 309 Nonworker in 1965, worker in 19 70 17,887 5,559 5,027 1,617 1,202 Worker in 1965, nonworker in 19 70 7,892 2,211 1,505 724 435 61

TABLE 35

NATIONAL UNEMPLOYMENT RATES: 1949 To 1970 (Annual averages)

Black and Ratio: Black and Year other races White other races to white

1949 8.9 5.6 1.6 1950 9.0 4.9 1.8 1951 5.3 3.1 1.7 1952 5.4 2.8 1.9 1953 4.5 2.7 1.7 1954 9.9 5.0 2.0 1955 8.7 3.9 2.2 1956 8.3 3.6 2.3 1957 7.9 3,8 2,1 1958 12.6 6.1 2.1 1959 10.7 4.8 2.2 1960 10.2 4.9 2.1 1961 12.4 6.0 2.1 1962 10.9 4.9 2.2 1963 10.8 5.0 2.2 1964 9.6 4.6 2.1 1965 8.1 4.1 2.0 1966 7.3 3.3 2.2 1967 7.4 3.4 2.2 1968 6.7 3.2 2.1 1969 6.5 3.2 2.0 1970 8.2 4.5 1.8

Note: The unemployment rate is the percent unemployed in the civilian labor force.

Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 62

The national unemployment rates for men and teenagers for blacks

and other minorities were higher in central cities than in the suburbs

of all metropolitan areas, including Houston, and were lower in twenty

cities included in the metropolitan group, than in the central cities of all metropolitan areas. Unemployment of women of black and other races was also lower in the 20 largest metropolitan areas. Table 36 reveals unemployment in central cities and suburbs of all and the

20 largest metropolitan areas for 1970.

Blacks and other minorities constituted one-third or more of the total employed population in eight of the 20 largest cities in the country in 1970. Data for the over 240 metropolitan areas in the United States indicate that black and other races constituted 20 percent of the employed population of all cities in the United States, but only about five percent of those in the suburbs. Comparable proportions were lower for other metropolitan areas as shown in Table 37.

Federal Employment

Black participation, as will be revealed from the data contained in the tables- is conspicuously low in the higher ranks of government service. This is true for Houston, other cities of comparable size, and the Nation as a whole. Brewer completed an impressive study of minority employment in the Federal Government. Released in 1972, the study citeF, failings in complaint procedures and charges that correc- tive action, when complaints were upheld, has been weak and unsatisfactory. UNEMPLOYMENT IN CENTRAL CITIES AND SUBURBS OF ALL AND THE 20 LARGEST METROPOLITAN AREAS: Table 36 1970 (Metropolitan areas as ranked in 1960. Unemployment rates lo metropolitan areas' Annual averages.) Subject other races Black and White other races to whiteRatio: Black and 20 largest All areas 20 lamest All areas 20 largest All areas 1-y-; Central cities AdultAdult men woman 5.57.4 6.46.08.3 4.24.44.9 4.33.94.9 1.31.31.5 1.51.7 ,....) Suburbs AdultTeenagers men 31.1 6.4(B) 31.8 5.07.4 12.9 4.4(B) 14.3 3.04.5 2.4(B)1.5 2.21.61.7 TeenagersAdult women Base too small to be shown separately. (B) 26.7 6.5 (B) 14.0 4.6 (B) 1.91.4 Source:2 MetropolitanTeenagers include areas aspersons defined 16 into 1960.19 years old. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 64

TABLE 37, PERCENT OF BLACK and OTHER RACES in the TOTAL EMPLOYED POPULATION, by METROPOLITAN AREA: 1970

(Metropolitan areas listed according to rank of proportion Negro in central city 1970, Annual averages)

Outside Metropolitan area Central City Central City

Total, all metropolitan areas' 20.5 5.2

Washington, O. C 70.6 6.1 Baltimore, Md 51.4 7.4 Newark, N.J 46.7 13.0 St. Louis, No.-Ill 41.2 6.2 Cleveland, Ohio 37.4 5.1 Detroit, Mich 35.6 5.1 San Francisco - Oakland, Calif 34.8 6.6 Philadelphia, Pa 33.3 6.e'- Chicago, Ill 25.4 2.6 Houston, Texas 24.6 0.5

Pittsburnh, Pa 22.4 4.7 Paterson, N. J 19.7 3.8 Cincinnati, Ohio 19.3 0.8 New York, N.Y 19.3 4,5 Dallas, Tex 17.4 4.2 Los Angeles-Long Beach, Calif 16.3 5.3 Boston, Mass 13.8 1.2 Milwaukee, Wis 12.6 .0 Buffalo, N.Y B./,. 2.3 Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minn 3-4 0.2

1Metropolitan areas as defined in 1960

Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 65

"Delaying tactics of the agencies, too often countenanced by the Equal

Employment Commission, have resulted in unreasonable delays in pro-

cedures."4 The report by Brewer, with an introduction by Ralph Nader,

indicts the Federal Equal Employment Program (EEOP) of the Civil Ser-

vice Commission for failing to establish programs and procedures to re-

duce discrimination in federal government employment. Table 38 gives

a breakdown of black employment in all federal agencies for select

cities. Federal employment by grade and salary group is shown in

Table 39.

The failure picture for Houston compares favorably with other

cities of comparable Over 36.2 percent of all blacks employed

in federal positions in Houston fall within the pay scale of GS-1

through 4; approximately 42 percent of blacks in full-time federal

employment in Houston work in postal field service at a pay scale

of PFS-1 through 5. A glance at the total wage system shows that 82.7

percent of blacks employed in full-time federal employment have incomes

ranging from $5,500 through $6,999. Conversely, of all workers employed

in the $14,000 through $17,999 category cor full-time federal employ-

ment, blacks comprise only 7.7 percent of this group. Table 40 shows

the data for full-time federal employment in Houston as of November

30, 1970. When Houston is compared with other cities, it is slightly

above many areas. In Dallas, for instance, blacks comprise 15.9

percent of the Civil Service Commission's regions, with less than

one percent at grade levels of GS-14 through 15 and about 12 percent

at GS-1 through 4. Figures for Saint Louis, Chicago, Seattle, and 66

TABLE 38

Employment of Blacks by All Federal Agencies in Each of the Commission's Regions as of November 30, 1970

Percentage Percentage of General Percentage of Federal Employees of Blacks Schedule at Each Grade Grouping on the. in Popula- Employees General Schedule who are Blacks: tion of who are Region 34237____Black 1-4 9-11 12-13 14-15 16-18 Atlanta 6.2% 15.5 3.0% 1.0% 0.8% T.2%

Boston 3.3% 3.4% 6.5% 3.6% 1.7% 1.4% 1.8% 1.0%

Chicago 9.5% 15.6% 28.5% 18.7% 7.9% 4.3% 2.3% 1.7%

Dallas 15.9% 5.2% 11.8% 4.6% 2.5% 1.1% 0.6% 0.0%

Denver 2.4% 2.5% 4.1% 2.7% 2.0% J.9% 0.5% 0.0%

New York 11.7% 13.0% 26.7% 16.6% 6.1% 3.5% 2.7% 3.6%

Philadelphia 12.1% 15.0% 28.8% 16.6% 7.3% 3.2% 2.1% 1.0%

Seattle 1.6% 1.9% 3.9% 2.1% 1.0% 0.7% 0.9% 1.5%

San Francisco 7.3% 8.7% 17.4% 11.7% 3.7% 2.0% 1.2% 1.0%

St. Louis 4.3% 8.2% 16.6% 8.3% 4.7% 1.8% 1.5% 1.2%

Central Office Area 21.0% 51.3% 31.2%12.5% 5.0% 2.4% 1.8% 67

Table 39

FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT, by GRADE and SALARY GROUP: 1965 and 1970 (Numbers in thousands)

June1965 Ma 1970

Pay Category Total Percent Total Percent Negro Negro

Total, all pay plans' 2,291 13 2,593 15

Classification Act2 1,126 9 1,292 11 GS - 1 to 4 336 19 308 22 5 to 8 311 10 373 14 9 to 11 265 3 318 5

12 to 18 214 1 293 3

Wage Systems 521 20 544 20 $7,999 of less 475 21 280 30 $8,000 and over 46 2 264 9

Postal Field Service3 .. . 586 16 704 19 PFS - 1 to 4 *496 17 93 36 5 to 11 86 8 *603 18 5 to 8 73 9 *579 17 9 to 11 14 2 24 7

12 to 21 4 1 8 4

'Includes other pay plans, not shown separately. 2Classification Act (General Schedule and similar) salary schedules are based on 1970 pay rates which start at $4,326 a year for a GS-1 employee and increase for each grade to $37,624 for GS-18 at the entering level. 3Postal Field Service pay rates range from $5,178 a year for a Grade1 employee to $33,171 for a Grade 21, at the entering level. In 1965 there were 20 PFS grades. *Includes 4th class postmasters and rural carriers.

SOURCE: U.S. Civil Service Commission. Table 40 Full-Time Employment as of NovemberStandard 30, Metropolitan1970 Statistical Area 1970 Minority Group Study Houston, Texas System Pay EmployeesFull-Time Total Black SurnamedSpanish American Indian Oriental AllEmployees Other Number Number Pct Number Pct Number Pct .2 Number Pct .2 Number Pct Total AllGeneral Payor SimilarSystemsSchedule 16,481 8,869 3,811 861 23.1 9.7 297983 6.03.3 26 2 .1 2735 .3 11,626 7,672 86.570.5 GS- 1 thru 84 1,521 147551 36.2 9281 5.25.3 41 .2.1 23 .1.2 885 86.058.2 O--; GS-14GS-12GS- 59 thru 151311 2,6631,8251,755 111 51 1 6.11.98.4 .1 204955 1.91.83.0 23 .2.1 13 36 .3.5.2 1,0492,5471,6511,510 97.695.690.5 .c...*!, Total Wage Systems GS-16 thru 18 1,2151,075 30 485 39.9 58 4.8 5 .4 1 .1 666 30 100.0 54.8 $ $5,500 7,000 thru thruLP $ $thru6,999 7,999 $5,499 181170323 17 115267 56 6 30.967.682.735.3 11 71 6.14.12.25.9 114 484910 28.263.015.258.8 $14,000$ $18,000$10,000$9,000 8,000 thru andthru $17,999$Over $13,999$9,999 8,999 130391 3 1031 7.77.9 30 2 1.57.7 5 1.3 1 .3 118324 3 100.0 90.882.9 Full-Time Employment as of November 30, 1970 (Cont.) Table 40 Pay Full-Time Total Spanish American All Other Total Postal Field System EmployeesNumber Number Black Pct Number Surnamed Pct Number Indian Pct Number Oriental Pct Number Employees Pct Service PFS- 1 thru 5* 5,1036,230 2,1132,438 41.439.1 530622 10.410.0 89 .2.1 47 .1 2,4483,154 48.050.6 PFS-10PFS-PFS-20PFS-17PFS-13 6 thru thru 12 211916 9 138969 20 318 7 32.8 5.1 89 3 2.29.2 1 .1 3 .3 128558 20 100.0_ 92.857.6 All Other Pay Systems 167 27 16.2 16 3.6 134 80.2 $ 6,500LP thru $6,499$ 9,999 4352 21 5 11.640.4 13 7.01.9 243530 96.081.457.7 $14,000$10,000$26,000$18,000 thru andthru $17,999$13,999Over $25,999 3325 95 1 20.0 1 11.1 4.0 33 100.048 80.088.9 *IncludesSource: 4th Class postmasters and rural carriers. U.S.(November Civil Service30, 1970). Commission, "Minority Group Employment in the Federal Government - SM 70-70 B 70

Atlanta are similar to those for Houston. For the Central Office Area,

51.3 percent of the GS-1 through 4 category are black employees; 31.2

percent of the GS-5 through 8; 12.5 percent of the GS-9 through 11 and only 5.0 percent of the GS-12 through 13. Less than 5 percent of the employees with grades GS-14 through 18 are black, as shown in Table 40

for the period ending November 30, 1970

Blacks were 15 percent of all Federal Government employees in

1970 compared with 13 percent in 1965. However, they held only 3 percent of the higher grade jobs under the Federal Classification Act,

4 percent of the higher grade. Postal Field Service jobs, and less

than 10 percent of the Wage Systems (blue-collar type) jobs paying

$8,000 and over in 1970.

Occupational Data

General and specific data on occupational status for blacks and other minorities are shown in Tables 41 through 47.The source for the tables (41 through 47) is the publication of the U. S.

Census Bureau of the Census, Census of Population: 1970, General

Social and Economic Characteristics, Final Report PC(1)-C-45, Texas. Industry,And Last Income Occupation in 1967 of of the the Experienced Residents ofUnemployed, Houston, 1970 Table 41 Type of Income of Families Black % Spanish With wagenonfarm or salaryself-employment income income Mean wage or salary income All Families 85,023$6,66977,225 6,197 90.8 7.2 $8,77441,99244,932 3,861 93.5 8.6 WithWith farm Social self-employment Security income income Mean farmnonfarm self-employment self-employment income income 13,744$2,367$3,930 598 16.1 0.7 $7,607$ 4,722 420980 10.5 0.9 With otherpublic income assistance or public welfareMean income otherSocialpublic income Securityassistance income or public welfare income $1$$1,277 ,426 9,9087,638 872 11.7 8.9 $1,931$$1,284 7,6711,715 880 17.1 3.8 AndIndustry, Income inLast 1969 Occupation of Residents of the of ExperiencedHouston by Race-1970Unemployed, Table 42 Total employed, 16 yrs. and over Industry 140,498Total Black 120,420 Urban Total71,833 Spanish 52,091 Urban ManufacturingConstructionMiningAgriculture, forestry, and fisheriesFurniture and lumber and wood products 22,52411,259 1,1152,415 941 18,852 9,1541,434 559945 17,055 1,0708,3021,0021,103 12,491 5,367 860675370 PrimaryOtherTransportationMachineryFabricated metaldurable including industries metal goods equipment industries electrical 2,9433,7692,5052,738 481 2,6392,1522,3013,351 433 1,8983,6322,568 735853 1,4382,7301,943 526617 TruckingOtherPrinting, nondurable service publishing goodsand warehousingand alliedTextiles Foodindustries and and kindred fabricated products textile products 3,4805,5612,454 671461 3,0624,2302,135 623429 1,2933,2501,0471,470 532 1,0521,9411,082 881473 WholesaleOtherEatingFood,Communications, transportation bakery,and trade drinking and utilities, dairy places stores and sanitary services 5,8682,7317,0314,4764,204 5,0132,3796,5053,8433,741 4,1772,2202,5081,9761,725 1,8491,3793,2511,1911,629 OtherPrivateBusinessFinance, personalretail households andinsurance, trade repairservcies servicesand real estate 11,38012,26412,406 3,9883,754 10,11910,831 9,5083,5483,467 3,1903,9862,7758,303 777 2,4383,1152,2356,393 396 PublicHospitalsOtherEducationalEntertainment administrationprofessional and and kindred recreation and relatedservices services services 4,3986,9409,8888,9951,372 4,0036,1098,5808,0921,235 2,3363,2393,0542,062 750 2,5601,6641,9811,584 471 and Income inIndustry, 1969 of LastResidents Occupation of Houston of the by Experienced Race - Unemployed Table 43 1970 Last Occupation of Experienced Unemployed Total BLACK Urban Total SPANISH Urban Male, 16 years and overSalesProfessional, workers technical & managerial workers 2,982 117 86 2,494 112 81 1,133 4151 913 4035 Operatives,Craftsmen,Clerical & includingforemen,kindred workers &transport kindred workers 672429174 573366165 287246 31 243212 23 ZIT ServiceFarmLaborers, workers workers, except farmexcept private household 3,588 549880 37 3,122 686452 26 838262202 6 637175178 - -.... co Female, 16 years andProfessional,ClericalSales over workers & kindred technical workers & managerial workers 605208241 229553197 181 7742 114 2677 OtherOperatives,PrivateServiceFarm blue-collarworkers householdworkers, including workers exceptworkers transport private household 1,198. 608162414 35 1,043 448140391 30 253162 4451 7 212124 2036 7 Industry, Last Occupation of the Experienced Unemployed, and Income in 1969 of the Residents of Houston: Table 44 1970 Income of families, unrelated individuals, and persons INDUSTRY Total BLACK Urban Total SPANISH Urban A11 Families $Less than $1,000 1,000 to $ 1,999 85,023 5,9745,371 71,656 4,5024,367 44,932 1,4201,443 32,229 1,1161,110 $ 5,0004,0002,0006,0003,000 to $ 5,9994,9992,9996,9993,999 7,6277,8577,4107,5046,769 6,5086,5796,1116,2605,455 3,7653,8022,9322,3801,757 2,6812,7782,1021,7631,222 $12,000$10,000$ 9,0008,0007,000 to $14,999$11,999$ 9,9998,9997,999 5,3857,1315,4576,5347,423 4,7726,2284,7365,6896,299 5,5425,1803,2403,7044,160 2,2503,7193,7232,7683,013 $50,000$25,000W,000 to orto $24,999More$49,999MeanMedian Income Income $6,811$6,213 4,003 458120 $6,980$6,392 3,617 431102 $9,361$8,218 4,523 146938 $9,307$8,119 3,171 100713 AllFamilies Families with & FemaleUnrelated Head MedianMean Income Income Individuals 115,559 $4,934$3,98418,879 $5,08198,008$4,11716,234 $7,46653,055$5,243 3,885 $7,281$5,38839,006 3,237 All Unrelated Individuals MeanMedian Income Income $2,613$1,92530,536$5,702 $2,707$2,04926,352$5,831 $8,505$3,769$3,077 8,123 $3,739$3,086$8,340 6,777 OCCUPATION Occupation and Earnings of Residents Table 45 of Houston by Race -BLACK - 1970 SPANISH Professional,Female employed, technical 16Nurses years and over & kindred workers 61,224Total 1,0537,074 52,968Urban 6,466 22,358Total 2,105 16,993Urban 1,624 Managers, administrators,OtherTechnicians,Teachers,Health professional workers, elementary except except workers health & secondary nurses schools 1,5323,493 863133 1,4293,173 133781950 684111776185349 553570144265 92 ClericalSales workers and kindredOther workersRetail than trade retaiFtrade except farm 9,4531,6381,9241,116 286 8,6601,7161,463 253915 7,6941,4401,701 261516 6,2371,09"1,332 241460 Operatives,Craftsmen, exceptforemen, transport Other& Secretaries,Bookkeeperskindred clerical stenographers,workers workers& typists 4,6557,2811,836 751336 4,1836,6721,694 653294 4,1602,794 638740 3,3702,331 507536 TransportLaborers, equipment except farm operativesNonmanufacturingNondurableDurable goods goods manufacturing industries manufacturing 2,9441,020 514691 2,621 469624938 1,2411,0363,202 163925 2,592 112973823796 ServiceFarmFarmers laborers workers, and farm and except managers farmFoodCleaning foremenservice service workers workers private household 21,038 5,0151,014 152 33 18,060 4,102 127911 27 1,6325,134 460 56 7 1,0293,407 365 7 Private household workersProtectivePersonalHealth service service service workers workers workers 13,500 2,5334,4896,371 60 10,781 2,1735,4113,914 50 1,556 682783660 50 343570478978 42 Table 46 Occupations and Earnings of Residents of HoustonTotal BLACK Urban by Race Total1970 SPANISH Urban Male employed, 14 andWhite-collar Blue-collar15 years of workersworkers age 502105957 24 410799 9911 268653106 24 462174 83 7 Female employed, 14 ServiceFarmand 15workers years workers, of age exceptincluding private private household household 135343326 16 264279115 16 233255 96 171198 80 Median Earnings in 1969WorkersPrivate of Persons inhousehold other in Experiencedoccupations workers Labor Force for Selected Occupation Groups 150 42 116 17 131 6 85 6 Male, 16 years and overLaborers,Operatives,Craftsmen,Professional, with earnings except foremen,including managerial, farm and transport kindred & kindred workers workers $5,190 4,5805,5125,6537,253 $5,259 4,6125,5665,6607,303 $6,229 4,3325,9216,7539,599 $6,193 4,2956,7199,3525,844 Female, 16 years & Operatives,ClericaloverFarmFarmers withlaborers, andand earningsincluding kindredfarm except managers tra:fisportworkers unpaid, & farm foremen $2,382 2,7133,1442,2022,320 $2,472 2,7223,1742,6362,568 $3,732 3,0863,8033,3013,107 $3,233 3,1413,861 77

Table 47

Occupation and Earnings of the Residents of Houston by Race - 1970

OCCUPATION BLACK SPANISH

Total employed, 16 years and over 140,498 71,833

Professional, technical and kindred workers 10,868 7,836 Physicians, dentists and related practitioners 201 368 Health workers, except practitioners 2,039 688 Teachers, elementary & secondary schools 4,434 992 Technicians, except health 607 1,071 Other professional workers 3,587 3,717 Managers and administrators, except farm 3,228 3,548 Salaried: Retail trade 774 936 Other industries 1,367 2,040 Self employed: Retail trade 657 294 Other industries 430 275 Sales workers 3,356 4,506 Retail trade 2,338 2,677 Other than retail trade 1,018 1,829 Clerical and kindred workers 15,324 11,132 Craftsmen, foremen and kindred workers 13,616 12,672 Mechanics and repairmen 2,783 2,703 Metal craftsmen, except mechanics 1,186 1,138 Construction craftsmen 4,506 4,486 Other craftsmen 5,141 4,345 Operatives, except transport 17,162 12,696 Durable goods manufacturing 6,278 5,556 Nondurable goods manufacturing 3,565 2,410 Nonmanufacturing industries 7,319 4,730 Transport equipment cperatives 12,521 3,082 Truck drivers 6,082 1,554 Other transport equipment operatives 6,439 1,528 Laborers, except farm 17,328 6,321 Construction laborers 3,889 1,988 Freight, stock and material handlers 6,0'98 2,103 Other laborers, except farm 7,341 2,230 Farmers and farm managers 284 159 Farm laborers and farm foremen 970 531 Service workers, except private household 31,931 9,628 Cleaning service workers 10,462 3,503 Food service workers 8,789 2,955 Health service workers 4,952 817 Personal service workers 3,352 1,236 Protective service workers 578 473 Private household workers 13,910 722 78

FOOTNOTES

1"Cities and Group Conflict," in Kingsley Davis, Cities: Their Origin, Growth, and Human Impact (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Company, 1973), pp. 264-65.

2 "Dimensions of Poverty," in Jeffrey K. Hadden,et al., Metropolis in Crisis (Itasca, Illinois: F. E. Peacock Publishers, Inc., 1971),pp. 228-30.

3U. S. Department of Labor, Negro Employment in the South: The Houston Labor Market. Manpower Research Monograph No. 23, 1971, pp. 11-16.

4M. Weldon Brewer, Jr., Behind the Promises: Equal Employment Opportunity in the Federal Government-7972). CHAPTER 2

EDUCATION AND DESEGREGATION

"For generations, the schools have had a mission in the United

States that went beyond simple learning." Horace Mann, in his description of education, characterized it as "the great equalizer of the conditions of men -- the balanced wheel of the social machinery."'

This philosophy permeated the whole of the American educational system and fell short only when viewed within the framework of black

Americans. For many black Americans, education meant the process of becoming more functionally adjusted to a private world characterized by racism in this country. Black education was unequal and, therefore, could not equalize conditions between blacks and whites in

America. Characterized by racism and separatism, education for blacks was governed by a system designed to maintain the status quo.

Both black colleges and secondary schools were, by tradition, instru- mentalities in the struggle for black people against the demands of a social-cultural environment that denied their survival at the equalitarian level. Gradually, however, black colleges restructured cur- ricula offerings similar to those of white colleges, and the aspirations of blacks stretched beyond their own segregated world. Elemen- tary and secondary schools allegedly operated under the same system for both faces but the amount and quality of education given black children differed. In a recent article published by Time Magazine

79 130

(April 16, 1973), it was described this way: "The crisis of doubt about education as an equalizer began in the 1960's after it became obvious that the schools were not performing their historic function for black and Spanish-speaking Americans..." The roots of the problem of segregated education began long before the 1960's. Centuries of neglect in all fields for advancement created vast differentials

in opportunities for blacks.

Major developments which led to the U. S. Supreme Court's school desegregation decision began during the early part of the 19th century, but significant legal development can be pinpointed for the period around 1936 in Pearson vs. Murray. Donald Murray, a black, enrolled at the University of Maryland Law School. In this case, the Maryland Court of Appeals held that the state must afford equal educational opportunities in its own institutions. Other cases were

filed against universities where course offerings were different from

those at black institutions. These included such states as Missouri,

Oklahoma, Kentucky, Tennessee, Texas, Kentucky, Virginia, and West

Virginia. Despite these cases involving the various states, where state courts opened white universities to blacks, it was not until the

Brown vs. Topeka Board of Education decision in 1954 that "separate educational facilities were held inherently unequal."This ruling considered the effects of segregation itself on public education.

"In approaching this problem," the Court ruled, "we cannot turn the

clock back to 1868 when the Amendment (Fourteenth) was adopted, or even to 1896 when Plessy vs. Ferguson was written. We must consider 81

public education in the light of its full development and its present place in American life throughout the Nation..." It was felt by the

Court that only in this way "can it be determined if segregation de- prives these plaintiffs of the equal protection of the laws...a

Rejecting any language in Plessy vs. Ferguson, the Supreme Court of

the United States concluded in 1954 that "in the field of public

education the doctrine of 'separate but equal' has no place."

The rendering of the Brown decision made segregated education

in America illegal. Initially, the Court was cautious in rendering

its verdict. Segregation in education was declared null and void

by the Court but implementation guidelines of the decision implied that integrated education should be achieved "with all deliberate

speed." The decision was an unprecedented step of legal significance,

but as it is with all laws governing human behavior, the Court could not provide the necessary direction for the elimination of attitudes held by the respective groups involved. Nineteen (19) years have passed since the ruling was first handed down and the 1954 mandate has not been effected fully in public education in this country. Resis-

tance, defiance, and rebellion collored the first decade following

the initial decree. Defiance, in the form of busing protests and outright rejection by whites, has characterized almost another decade.

In addition, related civil rights legislation in such areas as housing, employment, and public accommodations followed the Brown decision in American society. In each instance, the necessity for

social and cultural changes in our society was introduced. Change was not always easy. 8?

Desegregation in Houston

The Houston Independent School District (HISD) did not desegregate its public schools "with all deliberate speed." Instead, for many years school board elections were structured to include the

"integration issue." Support for candidates was divided along lines of cleavage such as race and liberal versus conservative. Continuous appeals were launched by school attorneys in efforts to get clarifi- cation on rulings and/or to keep the system segregated.3

During earlier and critical years, Mrs. Charles E. White, the first black school board member in Houston, ran her first successful campaign with a coalition of liberal blacks and whites. She won the election through a carefully orchestrated drive to point out inequities in the system as related to black and white schools; she demonstrated a concern for the general welfare of students in the total district. Despite black representation on the HISD School Board, little integration or desegregation was achieved until 1967. This is not to imply that the black School Board Member, Mrs. Charles E.

White, was not effective. In fact, she was a source of pride to black communities in Houston and throughout the country. It is just that one black on a board with a majority of conservative whites has no real power. As a minority of "one", a black can act in the capacity of, a sounding board for the community by protesting decisions contrary to the interests of that community and he can lobby for support from moderate and liberal members on the board. Any other activity is virtually powerless without substantial public support. 83

The Houston Chronicle (February 12, 1969), in reviewing the legal briefs filed by HISD school attorneys, stated: "The last ves- tiges of de jure separate schools were not eliminated from HISD until September, 1967, when a 'freedom of choice plan' was inaugurated allowing students to transfer to schools of their choice in the district. On February 11, 1969, the U.S. Department of Justice sought a court order which called for an end to the 'freedom of choice' plan and for a more extensive integration of school facilities. In its brief to the Court, the Justice Department charged that the plan used by Houston failed to 'disestablish the dual school system'." Some

Board members and citizens agreed with the Justice Department's brief.

They could not get their children to white schools because of the lack of transportation..." Other charges were made concerning school boundaries in the HISD. One school board member stated that the existing boundary system -- used by the HISD at the time had been gerry- mandered to exclude blacks from all-white schools.

In reviewing the statistics on desegregation for the period in question, there is some validity to the Justice Department's answer.

In its petition to the federal government, the Justice Department con- tended that 81.7 percent of the black students in the HISD in 1969 were enrolled in schools that were 95 percent black; 79.8 percent of the white students in the HISD were enrolled in schools that were 95 percent white. In schools with 95 percent black enrollment, 93 percent of the faculty was black; in schools with 95 percent white enrollment,

94.1 percent of the faculty was white in 1969. In its brief, the 8/1

Justice Department asked the Court to order the Houston Independent

School District to "formulate and adopt a new student assignment plan and to assign teachers to the various schools on the basis of the overall racial composition of the respective schools. The Houston Post

(March 28, 1969) reported that school attorneys sought assistance from

U. S. Congressman Bob Eckhardt in the matter. It was reported that

Eckhardt refused and charged:

I believe that the Houston School Board has never really accepted the Supreme Court's decision and what has been done in the location and assignment of children to schools within its jurisdiction has been done in a spirit of frustrating the effect of the decision. It is this, primarily that has made it so difficult to resolve our school problem in Harris County. Only the extremes are presented as possibilities.

Eckhardt made these views known in an open letter and reminded those who had sought his assistance that 'it would be grossly improper for me to call the Justice Department and tell them to call of their suit, if that is what you are asking..." All law-abiding citizens, particularly black and brown Americans, applauded Eckhardt for his stand.

This admiration transcended the issue of desegregation; it embraced a general respect for a representative who seeks to uphold the law as outlined by the Constitution. On March 26, 1969, the Houston Post took a position similar to that of Eckhardt. In a brief editorial, the paper stated:

Houston is a desegregated city. It has been for a long time. Black and white citizens get along easily and pleasantly together in desegregated office buildings, buses, 85

airplanes, drug stores, restaurants, hotels, colleges and universities, libraries, and public parks. Only the public schools -- the PUBLIC schools -- are burdened with half measures and token integration. Only the Houston School Board has moved with stupid slowness in the in- evitable and rewarding growth of Houston as a cosmopoli- tan city in which all citizens enjoy the same rights and public facilities?

Despite this public outcry by a reputable individual and a responsible and respected institution, HISD attorneys appealed for a stay of the Department of Justice's directives. Following this action, the U.S. District Court in Harris County granted the school district permission to continue with the present plan of "freedom of choice" until September, 1970. At that time, the HISD was instructed to have a new zoning plan ready or a school pairing plan (the so-called "cluster" concept). On June 1, 1970, Federal Judge Ben Connally ruled on a new plan submitted by the School Board. Judge Connally accepted the

"equi-distant zoning plan" which required that school zones be drawn exactly equal from adjacent schools. On August 25, 1970, the U. S.

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans slightly modified the

"equi-distant zoning plan" by recommending a "geographic capacity zoning system." Under this plan, the size of school zones is determined by the capacity of schools, with some allowances made for natural hazards posed by the presence of freeways, bayous, freeways, and related natural phenomena.5 This plan appeared to approximate a realistic approach to the issue of school desegregation, except for the fact that the Mexican-American student population was virtually ignored in the total scheme of things. A series of protests took place because 8F

Chicano students were not treated as a distinct minority. This group

feared that the ruling could affect Chicano students in an adverse way. It was felt that the lack of reference to Mexican-American

students as a separate minority group could possibly lead to the pairing of Chicano and black students under the disguise of desegregated

schools. For integration purposes only, Mexican-American students were being counted as whites.

Statistics on Desegregation

Statistics on five areas vital to the desegregation process in

the Houston Independent School District will be examined. These areas

include the following: (1) Elementary pupils by race and school;

(2) secondary pupils by school and race; (3) teacher assignments by

race and school; (4) pupil-teacher ratios by school and race; and

(5) withdrawal rates by school. Data on all schools in the district were difficult to achieve. Therefore, the statistics included here will include a select number of schools at the elementary and secon-

dary levels. Three inner city areas represent the Primary Sampling Area.

In Houston, as in most big cities, there appears to be a strange color transition flowing from the inner city to "suburbia". The extent

to which the "equidistant plan" will eliminate this flow is difficult

to determine at this point. According to the plan, the "equidistant" arrangement was designed to achieve a higher incidence of desegregation

in the Houston Independent School District.The equidistant plan, approved by the presiding judge in the Houston case, is a replica of 87 the one approved by the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit of Orange County, Florida in Ellis vs. Board of Public Instruction of Orange County, Florida (February 17, 1970).The plan called for separate zoning for elementary, junior high, and senior high schools. Each student would be required to attend the school nearest his home. School capacity, distance from the adjacent schools, and other factors affecting the proposed change in boundary lines were believed to be capable of increasing the integration factor. We chose three inner city elementary schools at random to determine the workability of the "equidistant plan" for Houston. Dodson, Briargrove, and Fondren were selected and data were compiled for the years 1970-72.Table 48 gives a breakdown of pupil composition by race.

Table 48 Percentage Distribution of Elementary Pupils for.Select Schools by Race

Whi te Black Mexican- American

Dodson

1970 .0% 100.0% .0% 1971 .7 97.1 2.2 1972 9.1 66.2 24.7 Bri arqrove

1970 98.9 .0 1.1 1971 99.4 .0 .8 1972 98.5 .0 1.5

Fondren

1970 78.9 8.4 12.7 1971 83.0 2.2 14.8 1972 73.6 1.5 24.9 $8

In each of the schools shown in Table 48, the enrollment of white and Mexican-American students increases in the predominantly black Dodson School from 1970-1972.For Briargrove School, the enrollment for Chicano students increased but the enrollment of black students decreased.Fondren School had a black student population of 8.4 percent in 1970 but this figure decreased to less than two percent for 1972.It is difficult to determine the causes for black enrollment decreases in the predominantly white schools.The causes may be racial transfer requests, population mobility, and dismissals and/or suspensions.Data in these areas would have to be analyzed before concrete reasons for the decreases and increases could be determined. Junior high schools,selected at random, were also analyzed. These schools included Fleming, George Washington, and Albert Thomas junior high schools.Table 49 gives a distribution of pupils for these schools by race.The Fleming Junior High School is predominantly black with a small proportion of Mexican-American students enrolled.The white percentage in Fleming Junior High decreased during the period of 1970-1972.In 1970, there were five whites attending Fleming Junior High. School, but by 1972 all whites had either graduated, transferred, or moved out of the area.This same school was 99.6 percent black in 1970.In 1972, however, the percentage of black pupils had decreased 88 percent.The Chicano student population at Fleming increased from less than one percent in 1970 to 12 percent in 1972. 89

George Washington Junior High School had a more equitable distribution of pupils during the period, 1970-1972. In the case of whites, there was a constant decrease in proportionate representation, from 39.4 percent in 1972. During the same period, black enrollment increased from 15.1 percent in 1970 to approximately

28 percent by 1972. From these data, it appears that the trend of black invasion versus white succession is operative. Table 49 shows the breakdown of school enrollment for select junior high schools in the Houston Independent School District.

Table 49

Percentage Distribution of

Selected Junior High Schools by Race, 1970-1972

White Black Mexi can-Ameri can

Student Student Student Percentage Percentage Percentage

Fleming

1970 .0% 99.6% .4% 1971 .0 88.0 1.4 1972 .0 88.0 12.0

Geo. Washington

1970 39.4 15.1 45.5 1971 36.3 29.4 34.3 1972 32.9 27.8 39.3

Albert Thomas

1970 34.4 59.4 8.2 1971 35.0 60.3 4.7 1972 20.9 74.9 4.2 90

Davis, Jones, and Lee High Schools were used in our analysis.

Senior high schools, such as Jack Yates, Kashmere, Booker T.

Washington, and Worthing, were not used because of their obvious

racial make-up and their general locations in predominantly black

areas. It was felt that border schools and previously all-white

schools were better indicators for the effectiveness of the equidistant plan. As shown in Table 50, white student population representation decreased in the Jefferson Davis Senior High School during the period 1970-1972. In 1970, the proportionate representation at

Davis for whites was about 15 percent; in 1971, the figure had de-

creased to 12.8 percent; and in 1972, the percentage decreased to

about 10.3 percent. As is shown in Table 49, black enrollment

increased in the schools while Mexican-American enrollment decreased.

The same analysis holds true for Jones and Lee schools. The basis for the decrease in enrollment is not clear. Also, it is not clear

how much of the decrease is due to transfers, re-assignments, or

"white flight".

TEACHER ASSIGNMENTS

Pupil-teacher ratios by school is an important variable in assessing the progress of desegregation in a school system. In a

Court decree issued June 1, 1970, it is stated: "Effective no later than August 24, 1970, the principals, teachers, teacher aides, and Table 50 A Percentage Distribution of Selected Senior High Schools by Race StudentWhite Student Black Mexican-American Davis Percentage Percentage PercentageStudent 197219711970 10.312.814.7% 41.533.821.9% 48.253.463.4% Jones 1970 74.7 18.6 6.7 Lee 19721971 43.851.6 48.040.7 8.27.7 197219711970 97.192.994.1 4.63.91.8 2.52.01.1 99

other staff who work directly with children at a school shall be assigned so that the ratio of Negro to white teachers in each school, and the ratio of other staff in each, are substantially the same as each such ratio is to the teachers and other staff, respectively, in the entire school system, with no more than five percent (5%) variance, above and below, in each school."

Three schools were chosen for analysis as related to teacher asssignments in this portion of the study. Alcott (an inner city school), Cooley, and Janowski were compared on the basis of teacher representation by race. The Louisa May Alcott Elementary School is located on Bellfort Street in the South Park residential section of

Houston which is a predominantly black area. The Peter Janowski elementary school is located on Bauman; the Cooley School is located on West 17th Street.. In the report released by the United States

Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, it is shown that no

Mexican-American teachers are in the schools just mentioned. Black representation on the faculty of Alcott School increased each year during the period, 1970-1972; decreased in the Cooley school for the same period; and increased in the Janowski school for the years,

1970-1972. Table 51 shows a distribution of faculty members by race for three elementary schools selected at random for the analysis.

Pupil-teacher ratios for three senior high schools in the

Houston Independent School District are shown in Table 52. 93

Table 51 Teacher Assignments for Three Elementary Schools by Race*

White Black Mexican-Amercian

Alcott 1970 51 7 0 1971 40 17 0 1972 31 19 0 Cooley 1970 22 4 0 1971 14 8 0 1972 10 4 0 Janowski 1970 20 3 0 1971 17 8 0 1972 15 11 0

*SOURCE: Report of U.S. Dept. of Health, Education and Welfare, 1972-73.

Table 52 Pupil-Teacher Ratios for Select High Schools by Race*

White Black Mexican-American

Lincoln

1970 3.) 0. 5) 1(30 636(P) 149(P)

1971 13(T) 0(T) 8IR 481(P) 127(P)

1972 15(T) 0T) 7109 512(P) 126((P) Waltrip

1970 5T) 2,3MTP 105((P) 117P-d

1971 79(1) 24(T) 1T) 134 P) 129((P)

1972 70(1) 1(T) 1Vd 127(P) Westbury 1970 91 4g5 119Fd

1971 1,8rOrd 15 P 117Fd

1972 1,93Wd 22 P 210rd

* T = Teachers; P = Pupils. 94

Lincoln High School's teacher-pupil ratio increased. The black teacher-pupil ratio decreased from 1:212 to 1:34, and the Mexican-

American teacher-pupil ratio remained constant for the period,

1q70-1972, with no teachers represented. At Waltrip High School the white teacher-pupil ratio increased; the black teacher-pupil ratio decreased. The same pattern occurred in the Westbury Senior

High School. The report on the progress of desegregation for the

HISD, released by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare on October 2, 1972, gave a breakdown of the school population by race. Teacher-pupil ratios and percentages are shown in Table 53.

Table 53

Race of Students and Staff as Reported on H.E.W. Reports (as of October 2, 1972)

White Black Mexican-American

STUDENTS Senior high 53.1% 35.2% 11.2% Junior high 45.4 39.0 15.1 Elementary 39.8 40.9 18.9

Total 43.6 39.4 16.5

STAFF Senior high 65.7 31.8 2.0 Junior high 63.9 33.2 2.6 Elementary 58.2 39.1 2.5

Total 61.2 36.0 2.5

As shown in Table 53, white teachers comprise 61.2 percent of the teaching staff in Houston, with only 43.6 percent of the population listed as white. Thirty-six percent (36%) of the teaching staff in elementary, junior, and senior high schools in the HISD 95

were black persons in 1972, with 39.4 percent of the student body listed as black. On the other hand, Mexican-American representation in the student bodies was 11.2 percent at the senior high level;

15.1 percent at the junior high level; and 18.9 percent at the elementary level for the HISD. Mexican-Americans comprised about

17 percent of the student body in all schools in the District as of

October, 1972. Staff representation for Mexican-Americans was about

2.0 percent at the senior high level, but less than three percent (3%) at the junior high or elementary level. This small proportionate representation by Mexican-American teachers in the school system is critical considering the large student population in the District.

It is a critical problem but not an unusual one. Many large urban areas with substantial Chicano student populations are experiencing difficulty in recruiting Mexican-American teachers because of an apparent shortage in the State.

WITHDRAWALS

There were substantial withdrawals from both black and white schools in the District. A selected number are shown in Table 54.

Withdrawals at predominantly black Wheatley High School increased during the period, 1970 through 1972; students withdrawing from Jack

Yates Senior High School decreased by 38 percent. Withdrawals at Terrell and Key schools increased by five and seventeen percent, respectively.

Likewise, Benbrook withdrawals increased only slightly with those at

Durkee increasing by 46 which is 22 percent. 96

Table 54

Withdrawals from Selected Schools in the Houston Independent School District, 1970 - 1972

1970 1971 1972

SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS

Wheatley 289 171 389 Yates 510 371 315

JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS

Key 196 272 237 Terrell 151 142 160

ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS

Benbrook 76 87 84 Durkee 156 152 202

Referrals for disciplinary reasons were greatest among the black student population, with an almost equal number for white and

Mexican-American students. During the 1971-72 school year, 25,272 or 39.9percent of all such referrals were black; 18,739 or 29.5 percent, white; and 19,221 or 30.3 percent were Mexican-American.

Black students, as well as their parents, charge that many teachers fail to understand their needs and aspirations. In talking with several students who had been suspended or had voluntarily with- drawn from school, we found that most complaints are against teachers and administrative officials. The most common of these relate to what they call "negative attitudes shown by white teachers in previously all-black situations."We could not verify the charges made because an objective study would have to be conducted to determine the accuracy 97

of such charges. However, the existence of such perceptions would,

we think, suggest the need for better understanding between pupils,

teachers, and administrators in interracial school situations.

BUSING VERSUS DESEGREGATION: SOME RESEARCH FINDINGS

The September issue of a publication of the Center for National

Policy Research (September, 1972, pp. 1-3) reviews several studies

concerning the benefits (or lack of benefits) of integrated education

to black and white school children.6 In effect, the studies cited in

the report on Civil Rights research were designed to assess the effects

of busing and integration on the academic achievements of the pupils

involved in the processes.

"For many, busing for the purpose of achieving racial integra-

tion has become a code word, replacing the phrase of "law and order,"

for a set of beliefs about the integration of blacks and whites in

American society."7 Proponents of busing, as one of the tools to

achieving desegregated schools, justify their positions on the basis

of the equalitarian concept inherent in democracy; others, less con-

vinced and more negative toward the idea of busing, view it as an

unnecessary means to an end. Anti-busing stands are often regarded

as evidence of racism, while those with a pro-busing stance see their

positions as reflecting a positive commitment to integration and to

an end to the dual system of education brought on by segregated housing

patterns and deliberate defiance by public school administrations. 98

These two opposing stands are reflected in recent researches which claim to show negative effects of busing and rebuttals by the pro-busing advocates.

Armor's study, "The Effects of Busing," sought to assess the effects of induced integration rather than "natural" integration that would arise out of voluntary neighborhood integration. Introducing what he called an "Integration Policy Model," Armor states:

Inequality and segregation are mutually reinforcing conditions, reflecting not only the judicial doctrine that separation is inherently unequal, but also the social reality that segregation of a deprived group can cut off channels and networks that might be used to gain equality. Segre- gation and inequality combine to cause psychological damage in children resulting in low achievement as an adult and further reinforces white prejudices (the vicious circle).'

Data for the Armor study were obtained from investigation of voluntary integration programs in Boston, Hartford, New Haven, White

Plains, Ann Arbor, and Riverside where racial transfers had taken place. Based on the findings from his study, the author made several startling conclusions concerning busing.

One such finding indicated that measures such as self-esteem and academic achievement did not increase in an appreciable way.

Another finding which he considered to be part of his "Integration

Policy Model" was that the dropout rate from college is higher for the bused students, however, these same students are much more likely to enter college than their control counterparts. Armor also found, from his analysis of the data, that aspirations for educational and occupational achievement declined for bused students. Conclusions 99

from these data involved two major findings: (1) There may be justifications for school integration other than those in the integration policy model (summarily cited above), but then the burden must fall upon those who support a given school integration program to demonstrate that it has intended effects (with no unintended negative side effects); and (2) Massive mandary busing for purposes of improving student achievement and interracial harmony is not effective and should not be adopted at this time. There is some question as to the validity of the research design utilized in the investigation by Armor.

Many leaders around Boston -- black and white condemned the

Armor study as "an act of pure racism."many of those who condemned the study were distinguished researchers at Harvard where Armor is employed, including such notables as Thomas Pettigrew, Marshall Smith,

Clarence Normand, and Elizabeth Useem of Boston State College. The

Winter Edition of Public Interest (1972) carries a rebuttal of "A

Critique of 'The Evidence of Busing'" and the aforementioned authors criticized Armor's research design and charged that the data were distorted to fit the study's anti-busing bias.9The basic deficiency found in the study's methodology was the failure to investigate conditions within the schools involved in the desegregation programs to determine whether a quality interracial experience was provided or if certain numbers of black and white students simply attended classes in the same building; nor was there any effort made to determine the competency of the teachers assigned to classes where blacks were enrolled and the attitudes of white teachers generally toward the in-coming students. 100

Interviews with students in the Houston Independent School

District indicate that some pupils experience difficulty in communi- cating with the white teachers and that these same teachers tend to

ignore them in classes. Other students cited insecurity, the lack of a feeling of belongingness, and hostile classmates as experiences they have encountered while being bused to previously all-white schools.

There were some students attending predominantly white schools in

Houston who appeared to be getting along very well with their teachers and with their classmates. The schools where this atmosphere prevails frequently are those schools where racial percentage representation is more equal or the schools are located in areas of transition -- usually from white to black areas.

Contrary to Armor's findings, two recent studies of black pride indicate that black Americans genreally have as high opinion of themselves as white have of themselves, but their self-esteem rests more on their personal relationships that their careers. The research, conducted by University of Connecticut sociologists and published in

Human Behavior (1973), shows that lower class blacks rate themselves higher than lower-class whites in their roles as parents, children, spouses, and conversationalists. Among the middle class, blacks and whites gave themselves almost equal ratings. Black self-esteem dipped more sharply in rating qualities concerning career success in school and on the job. Black women rate themselves higher in intellectual ability than white women. Another interesting finding challenged the assumption that blacks judge themselves by white standards. Sociologists 101

John D. McCarthy and William L. Yancey found that blacks measure their worth against the standards of their own "subculture." In situations where white teachers were working in predominantly black school situations for the first time, the knowledge of findings relating to self-esteem and black awareness could serve useful purposes.

Cohen, Pettigrew and Riley in On Equality of Educational Opportunityl° discuss "Race and the Outcomes of Schooling" and challenge the Armor findings by stating that "quality integration, with integrated classrooms as well as schools, integrated staffs, and proper remedial services, often leads to significant achievement gains by both black and white students." It should be pointed out that much of the con- troversy concerning the effects of busing centers on the differential meanings of the concepts of desegregation and integration. Where quality integration takes place, achievement gains have been made for both races; where desegregation has taken place (labeled by Armor as "induced" integration), little achievement, if any, can be cited.

It is important that one realize that sesegregation in classrooms has more often taken place under adverse conditions. Teachers, as well as students, have displayed extreme negative attitudes toward students of different races. In some large urban school districts, suspensions and/or expulsions, withdrawals, and general disturbances have increased. These negative attitudes reflect the general climate of the community where desegregation takes place and the reactions of the school administration and the society at large. Anti-busing advocates in Dallas demonstrated for days against the "forced busing 102

of school children."Other areas such as Detroit, Pontiac, and even

Houston have joined protests calling for the passage of a constitu-

tional amendment against busing. Some of these same anti-busing

advocates are among those participating in the so-called "white

flight" to the suburbs. It is no wonder that Armor and others with similar ideological strains, would seek an answer through faulty con-

clusions and distorted facts.

William J. Taylor in Dissent discusses the realities and evasions of busing and responds to the Nixonian attack on court-ordered integration in the Fall issue of the publication.11 Taylor reviews the Con- stitutional bases for requiring integration in the country, cites evidence that integration has worked in some parts of the country, and challenges certain myths about busing. In the following paragraphs, we will explore what we consider to be myths about busing in the light of available evidence in Houston.

Busing Myths

MYTH #1 Myth Number One figures heavily in the Nixonian philosophy about busing. In a televised speech during the Spring of

1972, President Nixon stated that there was "massive busing" in this country. Across the nation only about forty percent of all school children are actually bused to and from school, which is indeed a massive amount of busing; but only about three percent are bused to achieve integrated schools. Even where busing does occur, the burden of busing is borne by black and Chicano students. Statistics concerning 103

the results for effects of busing were compiled for the period ending Dec.,

1971 for students in Houston. Table 55 gives a breakdown of the results for effects of busing in Houston for "Paired Schools" and "Majority-

Minority Transfers" by race. As will be indicated, the bulk cf the students being bused in Houston comes from minority group areas. The percentage of black students involved in busing ranges from a low of

63.3 percent for paired schools to a high of 97.4 percent for the same period for majority-minority transfers. The situation relating to blacks and Chicanos remained practically the same until January of 1973.

Table 55

Busing Statistics for Houston* Mexican- White Black American

DECEMBER, 1971

Paired Schools 6.0% 63.3% 30.7% Majority-Minority Transfers 2.0 97.4. 0.5

JUNE, 1972

Paired Schools 10.0 71.6 18.3 Majority-Minority Transfers 7.4 90.5 1.9

JANUARY, 1973

Paired Schools 5.6 69.4 24.9 Majority-Minority Transfers 3.1 95.5 1.2

*See footnotes at end of chapter.

MYTH #2 The second myth relates to the charges that busing is required to achieve something called "racial balance."The fact is that there is not a single pupil in this country being bused for that 104

purpose. After reviewing developments since the issuance of the initial decree to end "separate but equal" schools, one can conclude that the advent of busing came when districts failed to comply with court ordered desegregation and open housing laws. Busing under court order is for one reason and one reason only -- to desegregate "segregated" school systems. Judge Wisdom of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals

(Dallas Times Herald, April 18, 1972) discussed busing in a speech at Tulane University last year. He stated that "justice must be color- conscious as well as color blind when it becomes necessary to remedy the evils of past discrimination based on color."

Anti-busing advocates would lead the public to believe that federal courts, without mercy, have escalated their demands on school districts throughout the North and South. To believe that this is the case is to ignore the fact that school districts would not have been taken to court in the first plake if they had not been guilty of constitutional violations.

Nineteen years have passed since the rendering of the now famous

Brown Decision, but there are still districts which have not complied with the order of the Court. Delays, non-compliance tactics such as appeals and counter-suits, and direct defiance have been measures used by those who are opposed to desegregating school systems. It may very well be that objections to busing are thin disguises to avoid or to minimize desegregating public schools. Vast sums of money have been used on litigation in the courts for purposes of feeding incli- nations towardnon-compliance through continuous appeals and the 105

filing of briefs with the court. Tax funds are actually being used indiscriminately to slow any progress toward complete desegregation.

MYTH #3 - An often cited myth is that white children are being bused for unreasonably long distances. The fact is that black children have borne the disproportionate amount of the burden of busing to achieve desegregation. In the Houston Independent School District, over 90 percent of the children bused are black or Chicano; they spend more time on buses and travel longer distances. Minority group children are still the victims of whatever standards are imposed -- not white children. White students in Houston, as in other cities, have reaped the greatest benefits by virtue of their birth and color, if education is as Mann said, "an equalizer of the conditions of men."

It has provided mechanisms through which this can be achieved for the majority race, not the black or Mexican-American citizens.And, if one wants to question whether busing is feasible in the light of the inequities in school facilities (inner city schools versus other schools), he must remember that there is less busing now than when it was done to preserve the unconstitutional segregated school.

MYTH #4 - Another myth about busing is that it is not a racial issue; rather, that people are just concerned about preserving the neighborhood school concept. Innovations in transportation have made the population in urban areas an extremely mobile one. Few people consider neighborhood schools when they send their children to private schools such as prestigious academies or to colleges and universities. 106

The whole "social experiment" story is a myth, too. Children are not bused for a social experiment; they are bused because the

Constitution forbids unequal, segregated schools. They are bused because it is a black or brown child's constitutional right (as it is with white children) not to be herded into a separate, inferior school.

PROGRESS TOWARD DESEGREGATION

We have tended to dwell on the comparative aspects of desegregation along rather negative lines. Some schools in Houston are desegregated. These schools are located in or near integrated neighborhoods. Some people are of the opinion that the "equi-distant plan" contributed to desegregation efforts also. Table 56 shows the percentage breakdown of some of the schools cited as most successful in their desegregation efforts. Table 57 shows the least successful schools at achieving desegregation in the HISD.

Table 56

A Percentage Distribution of Pupils in Selected Schools in HISD (Most Desegregated)

White Black Mexican-American

Piney Point 45.8% 43.2% 11.0% Burbank 55.2 26.4 18.4 Furr 42.6 47.3 10.1 Lanier 62.6 31.2 6.2 Jones 43.8 48.0 8.2 Sterling 51.0 44.1 4.9

*There may be some discrepancies in figures because they were collected from numerous reports and newspaper accounts. 107

Table 57

A Percentage Distribution of Pupils for Select Schools in HISD (Least Desegregated)*

White Black Mexican-American

Blackshear 0 % 100.0% 0 % Carnegie 0 100.0 0 DeZavala 1.6 .5 97.9 Douglass 0 100.0 0 Franklin 8.6 1.1 90.3 Herod 98.5 0 1.5 Lovett 98.8 .2 1.0 Walnut Bend 98.9 .1 1.0 White 98.1 .1 1.8 Fondren 97.0 1.2 1.8

*Any discrepancies in percentage are related to differences in source of data.

The purpose of the commentary on school desegregation was not to indict the school system, but one cannot escape the fact that the dual system in American society -- or in Houston, for that matter -- has not been completely dismantled. A report by a bi-racial committee acknowledged this on August 29, 1972 as follows: "The current implementation of the desegregation program is not working in behalf of the upward mobility of minority students as much as all would desire..."

The committee urged that the Court re-examine its entire desegregation order of August 25, 1970, with the view toward directing action which achieves upward mobility of minority students. Some accomplishments have been made since this statement was issued, but as will be shown

in the statistics on higher education and in the chapter on "Civil

Rights", minority groups still have quite a distance to go before becoming complacent in the feeling that "we have done all we can." 108

The City of Houston can meet the challenges of our time through a continuous and realistic approach to the problems with which it is faced. It is reasonable to expect that growths of misunderstanding and myths, prejudice and confusion cannot be erased over night. But, almost two decades have passed since school districts were ordered to dismantle the segregated system, and time is working against those who are victims of inequality.

The chronology of major desegregation developments in the nation and Houston has been included as a means of introducing data on the status of school desegregation in Houston. Selected data have also been included on higher education for blacks and state employment.

STATISTICS ON HIGHER EDUCATION AND STATE EMPLOYMENT BY RACE

General tables are given in this section on black college enrollment by sex, black college enrollment by type of institution, percentage of persons 25 years of age and over who completed four years of high school or more, and four years of college or more for selected metropolitan areas, average budgeted faculty salaries and ranges by rank and institution for public senior colleges and universities in Texas for public junior colleges.

Selected data are presented as related to State employment by race and average pay. Data in this section were obtained from a Report of the Texas Association of College Teachers, the United States Census 109

Bureau, and local dailies: The Houston Chronicle (April 10, 1973); and The Houston Post (November 26, 1972). 110

TABLE 58

Racial and Ethnic Enrollment Data Frnm Institutions of Higher Education, Fall, 1970 (with 1972-73) (NA-Not available) TOTAL BLACK MEXICAN-AMERICAN

1. DOMINICAN COLLEGE 1970 272 29 39 Percentage 10.7 14.3 1972-1973* 350 59 27 Percentage 16.8 7.7

2. HOUSTON BAPTIST COLLEGE 1970 891 64 28 Percentage 7.2 3.1 1972-1973 1,121 NA NA Percentage

3. RICE UNIVERSITY 1970 2,332 48 25 Percentage 2.1 1.1 1972-1973 3,246 78 NA Percentage 2.4

4. ST. THOMAS UNIVERSITY 1970 1,082 46 93 Percentage 4.3 8.6 1972-1973 1,650 NA NA Percentage

5. UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON 1970 13,546 45 759 Percentage .3 5.6 1972-1973 NA NA NA Percentage

6. TEXAS SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY 1970 3,610 3,568 14 Percentage 98.8 .4 1972-1973 6,396 5,952 NA Percentage 93.1

7. SOUTHWEST TEXAS JUNIOR COLLEGE 1970 915 5 386 Percentage .5 42.2 1972-1973 NA NA NA Percentage

8. SOUTH TEXAS JUNIOR COLLEGE 1970 1,930 6 152 Percentage .3 7.9 1972-1973 2,876 NA NA Percentage SOURCE: U.S. Department of Health, Education & Welfare, Office for Civil Rights. * 1972-1973 figures obtained by telephone 111

Table 59

College Enrollment of Persons 18 to 24 Years Old, by Sex: 1965 and 1970

(Numbers in thousands)

1965 1970 Enrolled in Enrolled in college college Sex and race Total Percent Total Percent 18 to 24 of 18 to 24 of years old Number total years old Number total

Black 2,041 210 10 2,692 416 16 Male 935 99 11 1,220 192 16 Female 1,106 111 10 1,471 225 15

White 16,505 4,213 26 19,608 5,305 27 Male 7,641 2,593 34 9,053 3,096 34 Female 8,864 1,620 18 10,555 2,209 21

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 112

Table 60 Black Students Enrolled in College by Type of Institution: 1964 to 1968, and 1970

(Numbers in thousands)

Subject 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1970

Total, Black college enrollment 234 274 282 370 434 522

Enrollment in predominantly Black colleges l 120 125 134 144 156 144

Percent of total 51.3 45.6 47.5 38.9 35.9 27.6 Enrollment in other collers (not predominantly Black 1 114 149 148 226 278 378

Percent of total 48.7 54.4 52.5 61.1 64.1 72.4

1Data on colleges are for 4 and 2 year institutions and professional schools, both private and public (including community colleges). Statistics for 1966 to 1970 include enrollment figures for nondegree-credit students. Prior to 1966 only degree-credit students are included.

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census and U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. 113

Table 61 Percent of Persons 25 Years Old and Over, Who Completed Four Years of High School or More and Four Years of College or More, for Selected Metro- politan Areas: 1969

4 years 4 years 4 years 4 years Standard metropolitan of high of Standard metropolitan of high of statistical area school college statistical area school college or more or more or more or more

14 selected SMSA's: New Orleans, La.: White 61 14 White 56 12 Black and other races 43 7 Black and other races 35 6

Atlanta, Ga.: New York, N.Y.: White 64 17 White 58 14 Black and other races 31 7 Black and other races 45 6

Baltimore, Md.: Newark, N.J.: White 51 10 White 57 12 Black and other races 26 5 Black and other races 46 4

Chicago, Ill.: Philadelphia, Pa.-N.J.: White 61 13 White 57 13 Black and other races 43 8 Black and other races 37 5

Cleveland, Ohio: St. LOUiF, Mo.-Ill.: White 62 14 White 51 11 Black and other races 35 5 Black and other races 32 2

Detroit, Mich.: San Francisco-Oakland, White 56 10 Calif.: Black and other races 40 5 White 74 19 Black and other races 57 13 Houston, Tex.: White 59 13 Washington,D.C.-Md.-Va : Black and other races 40 7 White 81 30 Black and other races. 47 11 Los Angeles-Long Beach, Calif.: White 69 15 Black and other races 58 11

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. TABLE 62 AVERAGE BUDGETED FACULTY SALARIES AND RANGES, BY RANK AND PUBLIC SENIOR COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES IN TEXAS Nine Months: FOR 1972-73 INSTITUTION Institution FacultyNo. FTE Salaries SalariesAverage Salaries Professors Highest Lowest FacultyNo. FTE SalariesAssociate Salaries ProfessorsAverage Salaries Highest Lowest No. FTE Assistant ProfessorsAverage Highest Lowest The University of Texas at Arlington 108.74 $ 16,797 $ 24,375 $ 12,100 140.13 S 13,502 $ 17,400 $ 9,700 Faculty 159.55 $Salaries 11,163 Salaries Salaries S 14,800 S 8,000 TexasThe University A & m University of TexasTexas atat DallasElAustin Paso 239.62105.65554.92 16.36 19,21616,92623,25021,169 30,15023,00031,80036,000 12,49012,00014,30013,000 241.67403.80 89.1312.91 14,96313,93515,23514,938 20,79017,80017,40019,500 10,20011,00012,900 8,208 260.79454.47141.61 13.31 12,43911,30312,00512,562 20,29015,40014,40020,500 10,000 8,1008,0009,000 TexasTarletonPrairie A & StateIView University A.College andLaredo M. College Center 57.2025.6526.70 3.00 16,41014,63217,45116,342 16,92017,29819,80019,512 15,84014,89512,17713,500 71.3322.3338.81 4.00 14,89514,41512,18413,585 15,30018,45014,76015,940 14,58013,05010,67410,260 14.0090.7552.5591.25 11,97011,95110,32511,415 12,91514,35513,54514,040 11,02510,530 8,7038,100 East Texas State UniversityTexarkana Center 103.53 16,681 18,325 13,800 65.00 2.00 13,706 15,450 11,000 107.00 11,920 14,350 9,725 -.-...... UniversityLamar University of HoustonOrange Center 236.76 87.00 17,50519,734 19,91430,000 12,51014,920 258.59 75.75 13,56815,12815,250 17,25521,10516,000 10,68814,500 9,675 101.08214.00 1.509.00 11,23512,55911,678 9,551 10,70413,80015,70513,000 11,200 8,9758,8309,000 -P StephenPanNorthMidwestern American Texas F. Austin University StateUniversity StateUniversity University 194.21 73.8338.6027.90 16,62715,94718,53215,808 18,00017,46022,73618,830 14,00015,12014,81012,010 140.42 86.0063.1028.00 13,47713,63614,76212,551 16,00014,94018,00015,510 11,70012,60010,30010,840 135.54187.14 59.3050.00 11,35911,62811,98211,003 13,50012,42014,92515,516 10,260 9,5909,6009,000 WestTexas Texas Woman'sTechSouthern StateUniversity University University University 225.53 40.8042.9634.75 16,65818,20616,18818,737 19,00822,00018,55435,000 15,00015,00314,02511,000 244.08 64.5064.1831.84 13,95415,85913,94813,999 17,65818,55020,00016,364 11,75413,00512,883 9,500 103.25107.48249.87 98.08 11,72313,11811,59711,772 14,31915,61918,50014,560 10,000 9,1809,6507,700 SulSouthwestSamAngelo RossHouston State State Texas State University University State University University 23.5097.5029.2573.31 14,28816,20716,57217,013 15,46218,37517,24917,244 12,00613,74313,07714,328 1)..0098.0073.1029.55 11,40013,73914,08814,014 400 12,62717,62515,33615,372 10,30511,78111,68311,628 110.33123.89 29.5054.00 11,57112,26711,431 13,55413,58112,960 10,881 9,8018,784 Weighted Average Total 2467.27 $ 18,564 2359.22 $ 14,359 3019.24 $ 11,912 9,856 13,302 8,600 AVERAGE BUDGETED FACULTY SALARIES AND RANGES, BY RANK AND INSTITUTION TABLE 62 PUBLIC SENIOR COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES IN TEXAS Nine Months: (continued) FOR 1972-73 Institution FacultyNo. FTE SalariesAverage Instructors Salaries Highest SalariesLowest No.Faculty FTE Lecturers SalariesAverage FacultyNo.Teaching FTE Assistants SalariesAverage FacultyNo. FTE All Ranks SalariesAverage The University of TexasTexas atat DallasAustinArlington 126.10 57.37 $ 9,5428,760 $ 12,700 13,000 $ 8,0007,000 15.24 .83 13,889 408.30 56.50 $ 6,5005,464 1962.83 522.29 $ 12,083 14,039 The University of Texas at El Paso 69.77 8,946 11,520 6,867 13,863 57.84 464.00 43.41 , 17,239 TexasTardetonPrairie A & View StateIM University A. College and M. College 55.2670.3582.3227.12 9,6538,5579,7198,578 11,11510,27814,40011,880 8,1006,7506,732 23.43 9,583 154.86 45.59 7.253.00 5,7446,1346,3005,0007,400 990.72134.90215.02 13,39310,87111,92611,949 UniversityEast Texas ofState Houston UniversityTexarkanaLaredo Center Center 87.7081.60 1.003.00 10,00010,305 9,3129,413 14,40012,20010,35010,000 10,00010,215 4,9508,416 94.94 5,228 223.29 81.53 3.001.50 5,8835,0007,8755,400 438.66347.19 15.0025.50 10,70712,09012,36812,003 NorthMidwesternLamar TexasUniversity UniversityState UniversityOrange Center 106.00 75.0935.25 9.00 9,4969,2777,1598,751 11,89011,13013,525 8,830 6,2207,5006,000 .13 10,000 179.15 13.7521.25 8,2525,4005,702 1115.28776.01162.40383.71 10.50 10,98812,23612,462 7,501 TexasStephenPan TechSouthernAmerican F.University Austin University State University 62.3283.5073.4560.60 8,2059,0158,9538,694 12,60011,50010,500 9,900 6,5008,5007,0007,740 7.343.35 11,213 7,199 46.67 4.10 11,471 7,500 251.52415.49225.70 11,61311,87512,13813,022 SamAngeloWestTexas Houston Texas Woman'sState StateState University University UniversityUniversity 57.4027.0060.5076.67 10,806 9,6669,2349,074 10,26911,50013,500 9,792 9,4597,3447,5006,908 4.40 8,329 219.33 46.0030.42 5,8518,2525,624 1008.47 144.20315.05321.71 12,58711,45313,40412,188 SulSouthwest Ross State Texas University State University Total 1524.01 104.89 30.75 9,0778,729 11,34011,250 8,0467,800 149.66 1704.40 39.8161.26 5,4006,012 436.45134.56363.23 11,33313,503 9.181 5OUJCE: Weighted Average The TACT Bulletin, Vol. XXV, No.2, S January-March,9,190 1973), pp. 6-8. $ 7,272 $ 6,419 11,223.80 $ 12,623 116

Table 63 AVERAGE BUDGETED FACULTY SALARIES FOR PUBLIC JUNIOR COLLEGES IN TEXAS Nine Months: 1972-73

Highest Lowest Average Salaries Salaries Salaries Alvin Junior College $ 15,336 $ 9,000 $ 10,972 Amarillo College 14,702 9,000 10,957 Angelina College 10,800 8,172 9,272 Bee County College 11,700 8,200 9,384 Blinn College 11,925 7,500 9,738 Brazosport College 13,006 8,100 10,472 Central Texas College 13,950 9,300 11,690 Cisco Junior College 11,450 5,291 8,459 Clarendon Junior College 10,400 8,500 9,163 College of the Mainland 13,455 8,910 10,292 Cooke County Junior College 11,600 8,000 8,924 Dallas County Community College District 16,785 8,506 10,042 Del Mar College 18,980 8,300 11,583 El Paso Community College 10,300 7,800 8,408 Frank Phillips College 10,690 8,550 8,791 Galveston College 15,078 8,505 10,979 Grayson County Junior College 10,600 8,240 10,248 Henderson County Junior College 12,175 7,200 8,941 Hill Junior College 10,200 7,050 8,348 Houston Community College * 6,000 Howard County Junior College 13,900 5,250 8,723 Kilgore College 16,800 8,000 10,325 Laredo Junior College 13,910 6,900 10,644 Lee College 16,150 8,350 11,865 McLennan Community College 13,055 8,350 9,720 Navarro Junior College 14,957 7,866 10,482 Odessa Junior College System 16,374 9,000 11,841 Panola College 11,950 8,450 10,058 Paris Junior College 10,300 6,500 8,980 Ranger Junior College 10,700 7,400 8,978 San Antonio College 16,900 7,200 10,417 San Jacinto College 19,340 9,324 10,140 South Plains College 11,900 8,100 10,058 Southwest Texas Junior College 11,250 8,500 9,488 Tarrant County Junior College 13,940 8,100 10,536 Temple Junior College 12,475 7,200 9,335 Texarkana College 12,550 8,410 10,407 Texas Southmost College 13,385 8,235 9,274 Tyler Junior College 14,100 5,175 9,247 Vernon Regional Junior College 10,570 8,082 8,800 Victoria College 13,491 9,648 11,685 Weatherford College 11,900 7,100 9,631 Western Texas College 12,766 8,440 9,601 Wharton County Junior College 15,350 7,050 10,813 State Weighted Average $ 10,032

SOURCE: Institutional data reportedto the Coordinating Board . 12/7/72 NOTE: Data include salaries of full and part-time faculty personnel in general academic courses only. (Part-time personnel equated to equivalent full-time positions.) No full-time academic faculty employed. 117

Table 64 Number of State Employees by Race and Average Pay for State Employees by Race*

Total Employees 118,055 White 94,353 Spanish-Surname 10,653 Black 11,911 Other 1,138 Average Pay White Male $8,582 Black Male 4,855 Spanish Surname Male 5,930 White Female 5,537 Black Female 4,518 Spanish Surname Female 4,682 Percentage of State Employees Making Over $14,147

**All White Males 9% (Spanish Surname included in this category)

All Blacks 3.8%

"Building Service" (Employment In) Jobs All Blacks 48.3 **All Whites 28.5 (including Spanish Surname)

**(Includes Spanish Surname). * Source: Houston Chronicle, April 10,1973 118

Table 65 Proportion of Blacks and Mexican-Americans in 20 Key State Agencies*

1968 1972 1968 1972 Blacks Blacks M-As M-As

Alcoholic Beverage Commission 0.9 2.3 17.4 22.7 Animal Health Commission 0 0.5 1.1 1.4 Attorney General 2.5 2.3 2.0 1.8 Board of Control 29.1 23.6 1.9 5.0 Department of Corrections 1.8 4.1 2.2 2.6 Department of Public Safety 1.5 1.6 3.1 3.7 Department of Public Welfare 2.7 7.2 12.6 16.7 General Land Office 4.2 4.2 2.6 2.3 Mental Health and Mental Retardation 12.8 16.1 7.8 9.5 Parks and Wildlife Department 0.7 0.8 4.2 6.2 Secretary of State 1.6 2.2 3.2 9.8 State Comptroller Department 0.7 0.7 3.0 3.2 State Health Department 10.9 6.7 19.0 17.5 Texas Agriculture Department 2.0 2.4 9.3 3.5 Texas Ed. Agency 9.5 13.8 7.3 5.9 Texas Employment Commission 4.5 7.9 7.5 14.0 Texas Highway Department 1.7 2.1 11.1 12.0 Texas You.th Council 11.5 11.4 1.0 2.8 Water Development Board 1.0 1.4 1.0 8.9 Water Quality Board 0 1.4 2.6 2.3

* Source: Houston Post, November 26, 1972. Educational Attaipment of Employed Persons by Occupation, Percent distribution Table 66 Ethnic Group, and Sex MAJOR OCCUPATION GROUP TOTALLess Than 4 Years Hi h School BLACK Total SpanishAmerican. White oms eted Other TOTAL ears or lore BLACK Total AmericanSpanish c o61 ComWHIT leted WhiteOther PercentMen u er 13 years and over 19,600 100.0 11,400 100.0 100.08,200 5,300100.0 100.02,900 100.08,200 5,400100.0 100.02,800 900 1,800 White Co'l'lar Managers,Professional Officials, and Technical Proprietorand 1.08.2 8.0 .9 2.51.27.4 0.05.7 10.3 0.0 31.7 9.8 26.4 7.5 15.442.3 100.0 (3) 100.0 50.016.7 Slue Collar CraftsmenClerical andand SalesForemen 19.077.9 4.1 12.476.1 2.74.4 28.481.5 3.7 24.584.9 3.81.9 3t..575.9 3.46,9 15.956.114.6 7.3 13.2'',0.4 5.7 23.150.019.2 7.7 (3) 22.244.411.1 ServiceFarm Workers Workers NonfarmOperatives Laborers 13.324.634.4 .5 15.929.234.5 .9 11.134.618.5 0.0 22.637.7 0.09.4 13.810.331.0 0.0 11.012.228.0 0.0 13.215.132.1 0.0 19.2 0.07.7 (3)(3) 15.7 0.05.65.6 WhitePercen'Ntili5FWomen Collar 18 years and over 12,000 100.0 14.9 100.08,800 9.0 100.03,200 31.3 100.01,900 22.2 100.01,300 38.5 7,500100.0 48.0 100.05,600 37.5 100.31,900 80.0 100.0 600 (3) 100.01,300 75.0 ClericalManagers,Professional and Officials, Sales and Technical and Proprietors q,93.31.7 5.62.21.1 21.9 6.33.1 11.1 5.6 30.8 0.07.7 33.312.0 2.7 23.212.5 1.8 60.015.0 5.0 (3)(3) 50.016.7 8.3 Blue Collar NonfarmOperativesCraftsmen Laborers and Foremen 17.419.0 .8.8 13.515.7 1.11.1 28.128.1 0.00,0 38.938.9 0.00.(' 15.4 0.0 0.08.01.39.3 0.08.98.9 0.05.0-0.05.0 -(3) (3)(3) 0.08.30.0 FarmService Workers Workers (3) Percent distribution is not shown where base 66.1 0.0 75.3 0.0 40.6 0.0 38.9 3.0 of percentage is 1,000 or below. 46.2 0.0 42.7 0.0 53.6 0.0 15.0 0.0 (3) 16.7 0.0 Table 67 Educational Attainment of Workers by Ethnic Group, Age, and (Percent distribution) Sex LABORCIVILIAN FORCE Number Percent Total YearsSchoolCompleted No yrs,1-7Elementary High School yrs. yrs. 8 1-3 yrs. 4 _yrs. 1-3 College or more 4 yrs. CompletedMedian Years 18Both years sexes, and over All persons 52,300 100.0 2.5 26.6 9.0 29.4 22.4 6.9 3.3 10.2 WhiteBlack OtherSpanish White American 10,00017,80034,500 7,800 100.0100.0 4.51.21.37.9 22.122.544.635.6 10.210.0 9.98.1 20.822.626.333.1 23.826.319.813.9 2.07.54.58.1 6.32.83.51.0 10.910.7 9,07.6 25Men, years and over All persons 24,300 100.0 a.3 34.2 9.9 25.1 17.3 6.6 3.7 9.3 WhiteBlack OtherSpanish White American... 14,800 5,2009,5004,300 100.0100.0 0.09,.66.31.4 29.127.953.842.1 10.111.6 9.69.5 23.329.115.418.9 20.919.613.7 9.6 7.01.95.37.4 9.30.04.23.4 10.310.0 6.28.2 Women25 ears and overi_ 17,509 100.0 2.3 25.7 8.0 31.4 22.9 5.7 4.0 10.3 WhiteBlack OtherSpanish White American persons 13,100 2,3002,2004,400 100.0 0.09.16.81.5 45.531.823.717.4 13.09.17.6 26.122.733.6 22.722.930.413.6 0.06.18.74.5 0.02.34.34.6 11.210.5 9.37.3 121

FOOTNOTES

1,'What the Schools Cannot Do," Time Magazine, April 16, 1973, pp. 78-85.

2.Education," The Negro Handbook (Chicago: Johnson Publishing Company (1966)), pp. 128-29.

3See: Ross versus Eckels, as President of the Board of Trustees of the Houston Independent School District, Civil Action No. 10444 (August 7, 1970).

4During this time Mexican-Americans were not classified as a distinct minority group. They were counted as white. On August 24, 1972, this status changed; Mexican-Americans are now considered to be a sEparate minority and/or ethnic group.

5A Reprint of the Federal District Court decree ordered by the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on June 1, 1970.

6David J. Armor, "The Effects of Busing,"Public Interest (Summer, 1972).

7 Ibid.

8 Ibid.

9Clearinghouse for Civil Rights Research, A Publication of the Center for National Policy Research, VI, No. 3 (September, 1972), pp. 1-3.

10Frederick Mosteller, et. a., On Equality of Educational Opportunity (New York: Vintage Books, 1972).

11 DE... Cit., Clearinghouse for Civil Rights Research, p. 122

NOTES AND SELECTED REFERENCES

Notes

A. Most of the data used in this section of the report were obtained from a review of court cases relating to desegregation litigation in the Houston Independent School District. A desegregation factor analysis, not included in this study, shows trends which point toward resegregation. Left undisturbed, the Houston school system will become resegregated within the next seven years.

B. An overall consideration of the figures from the various statistical studies examined shows certain obvious errors with respect to figures relative to the "equi-distant" plan. The figures shown for the freedom of choice plan are taken from the most current reports on enrollment and are accurate; figures for the equi-distant plan were based on projections.

C. Presently, the equi-distant, geographic-capacity, and a modified freedom of choice plan are being used to desegregate the Houston school system. (As stated by the Reverent D. Leon Everett, member of the Houston School Board, "the equi-distant plan is used at the elementary level and the geographic-capacity plan is being used at the secondary level.)

Other References

Racial and Ethnic Enrollment Data of Institutions of Higher Education. United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare Report, Office of Civil Rights, Fall, 1970.

Bureau of the Census. Reports on socio-economic, housing, and general population characteristics.

The Texas Association of College Teachers Bulletin, XXV, No. 2, --TJanuary- March, 1973), 6-8.

Houston Independent School District. Published reports on enrollment, teachers, and pupils by race and school.

Annual Report of the Attendance Department, 1971-72. Unpublished report of the Houston Independent School District. CHAPTER 3

HOUSING NEEDS AND MINORITY GROUPS

This section of the report provides information on housing

as revealed through surveys of minority group members and organizations, census reports, news articles, and other statistical

reports on the subject. Deliberate efforts were made to determine whether there are housing problems in Houston and the extent to which the problems (if they exist) have racial overtones. We interviewed a selected number of respondents from the. general population, real estate and lending institutions, and social welfare organizations in the City of Houston. The efforts and collection of opinions indicate the existance of certain

generalizations concerning the housing problem under study. Some of the assumptions are: (1) housing practices are unfair

throughout Houston; (2) there is a housing shortage of low to medium income housing; (3) there exist evidence of discriminatory selection of realtors to handle property of white sellers; (4) federal programs have been largely ineffective in meeting the housing needs of minority groups in the city; and (5) agencies and individuals involved in the federal housing programs are under suspicion by the minority community. It should be noted

123 124

that these assumptions are representative of certain charges made by individuals and organizations.

The preceding generalizations will be examined within the framework of attitudes set forth by the interviews conducted.

Statistical information will also be used in the interest of providing greater understanding of the housing situation as it currently exists in Houston and the larger Houston community.

GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF HOUSING

Advanced age of buildings, a large proportion of substandard dwellings, and a high degree of overcrowdedness are generally standard characteristics of housing in the highly delineated areas of minority group concentration. Data from the last decennial census on the condition of housing for the

United States show corraborative evidence of the existence of sub-standard housing. "For the entire country, the proportion of black households lacking some or all plumbing facilities is

1 more than three times the proportion for white households."

Between 1960 and 1970, the difference in the proportion of housing units with complete plumbing facilities between black and white households was reduced considerably, however.

In 1970, home ownership rates among black households in thirty of the cities with the largest black population ranged from 16 percent in Newark, New Jersey, to 55.0 percent in 125

Kansas City, Missouri. Proportionate representation of blacks in housing which lacked basic plumbing facilities ranged from

14.6 percent in Jacksonville, Florida, to less than two percent in Baltimore, Maryland.

For Houston, the ownership rate for blacks was 45 percent, with 55 percent listed as renters. Most households in Houston had all plumbing facilities. In fact, 96 percent of occupied units had all plumbing, with four percent lacking some or all plumbing facilities. Table 68 shows a breakdown of tenure and plumbing facilities for black occupied units in thirty cities with the largest black populations in 1970.

Subsequent tables in this chapter show the value of owner occupied housing units in Houston with a black head of household ranged from $9,400 to $17,000. There was a consistent increase in the value of black homes when measured in terms of median dollars from 1950 through March of 1970. The increase was a little more than $2,000 for each three year intervals, beginning with 1960 and during the period commonly referred to as the "Social Revolutions of the '60's." Houses less than

$10,000 in median dollar value for blacks it Houston were built prior to 1940, more than thirty years ago. The greater proportion of blacks own homes valued at less than $20,000. In addition, the greater proportion of homes valued between $20,000 and $34,999 was built during the period, 1968-1970. Recent surveys on housing 126

Table 68

Tenure and Plumbing Facilities for Negro Occupied Units, for 30 Cities With the Largest Negro Population: 1970

ercen o occupi e urn s n u re Plumbing facilities Lacki ng Selected cities Total With some or all occupied all plumbing units Owner Renter plumbing, facilities

New York City, N.Y 523,789 16 84 96 5 Chi cago, Ill 314,640 24 76 95 5 Detroit, Mich 192,902 51 49 98 2 Philadelphia, Pa 194,955 47 53 97 3 Washington, D.0 164,040 27 73 98 2 Los Angeles, Cali f 170,684 32 68 98 2 Baltimore, Md 114,095 30 70 98 2 Houston, Texas 89,991 45 55 96 4 Cleveland, Ohio 86,474 38 62 97 3 New Orleans, La 74,336 27 73 94 6

Atlanta, Ga 71,166 37 63 97 3 St. Louis, Mo 73,230 31 69 92 8 Memphis, Tenn 63,207 42 58 94 6 Dal las,Texas 57,892 44 56 98 3 Newark, N.J 60,446 16 84 95 5 Indianapolis, Ind 38,177 49 51 95 5 Birmingham, Al a 36,247 42 58 94 6 Cincinnati, Ohio 40,287 27 73 95 5 Oakland, Calif 39,645 40 60 97 3 Jacksonville, Fla 32,689 55 45 85 15

Kansas City, Mo 33,678 55 45 96 4 Milwaukee, Wis 27,540 33 67 97 3 Pittsburgh, Pa 33,712 33 67 92 8 Richmond, Va. 29,891 41 59 94 6 Boston, Mass 31,854 18 83 96 5 Columbus, Ohio 29 ,449 43 57 98 2 San Francisco, Cali f 32,500 25 75 94 6 Buffalo, N,Y 27,963 29 71 98 2 Gary, Ind 24,861 50 50 94 6 Nashville- Davidson, Tenn. 24,222 40 60 91 9

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 127

in Houston show that there is a gradual but steady movement of young blacks between the ages of 25 and 35 years into homes in middle class neighborhoods. These homes are valued in price from

$25,000 to $35,000.

As shown in the income section, there is some evidence to suggest that a substantial proportion of blacks, when measured in terms of income, occupation, and education, have moved from lower middle to middle class status. This mobility was related to a rise in individual and family income. The ratio of black family income to that of whites made a substantial and significant change during the last decade. The middle-income group in this category has made significant progress in Houston. A substantial proportion of this group lives in the Houston suburbs. They occupy homes in Fort Bend County, Southwest Houston, the traditional Third Ward Area, Scenic. Woods, and many are found to be living in Hidden Valley as well as Sharpstown. Some occupy apartments; most are home owners. It should be noted, however, that some families did encounter insults and discrimination in this physical mobility. Specific instances will be cited in the discussion on "Discrimination in Housing."

Residential mobility is a slippery and uncertain concept.

Blacks are confronted with a uniquely different situation when they seek to advance in American society. This is true in

Houstonas well as other parts of the country. Despite the 128

upward gains made in income, employment, and education, residential

mobility is still largely a result of the ecological processes

of invasion and succession. As blacks begin to move into some

areas of Houston, whites make their flight to other areas --

usually further out into the suburbs. The ecological processes

of invasion and succession defy any tendency toward integrated

neighborhoods in Houston for any sustained period of time.

Integration, like invasion, has an ecological existence which

is dependent upon a sustained relationship between the incoming

group and existing clientele. Human communities are governed by

basic organizational and cohesive forces which define the basic

mode of human adjustment. Where blacks come in contact with whites in neighborhood situations, blacks are more often viewed

as outsiders. Illustrative of this tendency is a letter which

appeared in the Houston Post (April 25, 1973):

. . .I enjoyed reading. . "How to buy a house

if you're Black. . ." However, the main point was neither discussed or explained. Why should a black wish to movewhere his neighbors do not want him, where he will never be accepted, no matter what. Whites do not force themselves where they are not wanted.

Historical distoritons and misconceptions about blacks

make it difficult, and in many ways almost impossible, for whites to accept them as neighbors. And, the tendency to view

blacks primarily as a single, undifferentiated mass of disadvantaged

people tied by the badge of color is revelaed in contacts with

realtors and sellers. 129

DISCRIMINATION IN HOUSING

Racial understanding has been further inhibited by the fact that realtors, builders, and lending institutions in Houston utilize di fferent standards and techniques in dealing with potential black buyers. This fact is revealed through interviews conducted with a cross-section of the black community in Houston.

Some of the problems encountered by Houstonians, in general, were discussed in a recent article published in the

Houston Post (April 15, 1973). In this article, Columnist John

F. Powers discussed critical issues relating to the sale and financing of homes. "Members of minority groups face the same problems as whites in finding a house and financing it -- and then some," says Powers. The extra problems of minority groups stem from encounters with real estate brokers, builders, and lending institutions. When confronted with discriminatory practices, some potential black bLyers will simply change realty agencies.

Others will seek redress through the courts. A United States

Justice suit was filed against Gary Greene Realtors Company.

Now this agency agrees not to discriminate in the sale of housing in a federal court consent decree. The Justice Department alleged the company "steered and channeled" prospective white and black customers to predominantly white and black areas,

respectively. This firm denied the allegations, saying it had 130

promoted fair housing programs and policies in its sale of homes.

Other such suits have also been filed against realty companies in Houston.

In talking with a selected number of black realtors in

Houston, we were able to ascertain some of the problems experienced in finding adequate and suitable housing for the black population.

One real estate salesman had this to say: "Lower income people have trouble getting financing for homes in the under $10,000 range because discrimination still exists in this area. By law

Houston is an open city, but steering blacks to particular areas like Dumbarton Oaks and Brentwood is a common practice. White

realtors will not show property in certain areas to blacks..."

Another black realtor indicated that there is less shortage of homes for lower and middle income blacks at this time because of the 235 and 236 homes. Apartment construction and inflationary trends have also reduced the demand for housing in this category.

"But," he said, "the upper income levels have trouble. White brokers don't sell homes in the $35,000 and above range to blacks. So, it is your black executives -- those who come in

from out of town with companies -- who have the trouble. They have trouble buying in the old established neighborhoods such as Candlelight Forest, Braeburn Valley, Tanglewood and Hunters

Creek, for example." Several other persons interviewed felt that even when a white broker shows a house to a black in 131

exclusive white neighborhoods, he is treated so coldly that the pride of the buyer precludes his having any further interest in the property. Other complaints were also aired, including the sale of property at exorbitant prices to slow the flow of blacks into certain neighborhoods, high appraisals of homes so that the white sellers get higher equities than normally expected for the same priced house, and "for sale by owners" techniques, where, if the person chooses to sell his home himself, he can sell towhoever he wishes. Many black realtors and potential customers share the belief that housing laws can only be applied to the realtor who discriminates.

There are additional complications in the path of lower and middle income minority group members. Several techniques of salesmanship used by some real estate agencies are insulting to blacks. One sales technique used largely by white realtors may be called "racial exclusiveness." They make sales appeals on the basis of the number of educated blacks living in the area.

This pitch is to let the potential buyer know that the area is in transition from a predominantly white neighborhood to a black one; and that they want to make sure that you live with people of your own kind. The snob appeal is carried further if the individual's race is not known. Where telephone contact is made, the white salesman or seller wants to know your place of employment, total income, and your present location. If the individual has lower middle class status, he is not shown homes 132

in the $25,000 to $35,000 range. The real estate brokers react

to the real estate market for whites, but they try to create

artificial ones for blacks by arousing or appealing to prejudices

in developing communities and the old established ones. "Block- busting" occurs in Houston. Some new developments, by design and

intent, are built for blacks only. Consequently, the showing of these homes is limited to black patrons only.

Another technique used by white realtors, if the seller

is black, is to tell the potential buyer that the owner is losing his home or that he has a second mortgage on the property. One black couple moved from Dallas to Houston late in 1972. The

real estate salesman showed them several homes in some parts of

Houston. The couple had indicated the type of floor plan they wanted. Eventually the house was located but the occupants were black. This couple was told that the owner was losing his home, only to find later that the owner had sufficient funds,

credit, and property to maintain the home. The seller had wanted a large home, and he had bought the house in a previously all-white area.

Newcomers and the middle income .blacks are more often

victims of discrimination because they can afford to buy homes in traditionally non-black areas. Blockages are set up by realtors through misquoted higher. prices and "sold" signs when blacks insist on being taken into better neighborhoods. Outlandish prices 133

are quoted by some white sellers; others will remain in a neighborhood

after it gets to be 98 percent black in hopes of making greater profits.

The young black executive has even more of a problem when

it comes to finding suitable housing in Houston. The better

all-black areas are stable. It ': difficult, if not impossible,

to find adequate housing in Timbercrest, Riverside Terrance, and

Brentwood West. Windor Village is gradually becoming black. For

the most part, the homes' in Westbury are priced too high for what

the buyer gets for his money. The South Park area, adjoining

Sunnyside, has long been overcrowded. With the advent of South

Park Village and the Selinsky Apartments, few middle and upper

middle class blacks will move in the area because the deed

restrictions have been violated and the area is ovP,impacted where traffic is vi rtually at a standstill during peak hours.

Where corporate headquarters are located in outlying

areas of metropolitan centers, blacks are faced with problems when they find themselves in suburbs which do not favor renting

or selling to blacks. This is not the case in Houston, although

some difficulty exists in this regard. Blacks live in outlying

areas of the city, but the question of location in relation to

community acceptance is another matter. However, another

dimension to the issue of location is that many corporations have

begun to conduct pi lot or feasibility studies to determine 134

community receptiveness to all its employees. This trend will tend to reduce the amount of discrimination and accompanying anxieties in this regard because the decisions to locate plants and facilities often rest on the potent factor of housing availability.

LOW INCOME HOUSING

Low income housing and public housing projects lie at the heart of attempts to provide affirmative action to eradicate slum areas in the city. Black community groups, in cooperation with the Model Cities Agency, are seeking means by which inner city areas can be redevoloped. In the central city, the problem of housing is, and will remain for years, acute unless concerted efforts are launched to ebb the tide of physical deterioration.

Federal subsidized housing, once considered a potential panacea, has seldom measured up to advanced expectations and most often has created new and growing problems for the low income group. A community planner for the Houston Urban League discussed the problemoflow incomehou-sing with our survey group. She states:

Although the city and federal governments have made commitments to the creation of housing for lower income people, nothing is currently being done beyond tokenism. The problem of housing is being approached from the vantage point of privilege. Those who have the money and the right skin color get the housing. It is mybelief that the situation will continue to exist until the problem is approached from the standpoint of what is right, -- in the interest of the general welfare of the city -- it can never be solved. 135

The representative from the Urban League of Houston also pointed out that programs have been in existence for the lower income persons such as the public housing projects and rent supplement programs. All the others, including the 235 and 236 programs have been for the moderate income persons, not for the low income group, as the public has been led to believe.

Closely related to public housing facilities for the low income group is the initiation of urban renewal or highway construction projects. An important aspect of urban renewal in the minds of low income residents is the prospect of clearance of all or part of an area. When black low income persons are faced with relocation problems, they usually result from decisions made outside of the community. Relocation rarely shows imagination or creativity in improving areas or fostering integration into previously all-white areas. Black low income persons are usally relocated in areas traditionally occupied by blacks or they are found on fringe areas of low-income white communities. In each instance, the ghetto remains intact.

What usually happens when black low income areas are threatened with displacement or relocation is the development of a total plan and inadequate, purposely abbreviated discussion of it in the community affected. After this takes place, blacks are simply moved out of the areas involved. No planning for new public housing takes place. Generally, they are dispersed 136

around the first and second rings of the central business district

and one finds the ghetto has not disappeared but it was merely

transplanted into another section of Houston. The movement of blacks from Third and Fourth Wards into Sunnyside and South Park

is an illustrative case, Low income blacks remain restricted by

virtue of their status and their race. As to solutions, StrIgman

panits a rather gloomy picture; "Today, the public housing program

goes without its traditional liberal and intellectual support;

it goes without union support; and it goes without any broad

demand among the electorate. And as for the poor, they go without

decent housing..." The author of"The New Mythology of Housing"

2 made these comments in 1970. There is evidence to indicate

that as late as 1973 he is still right in this assertion. In

Houston some neighborhood development programs are in progress

in black communities and other minority areas, but the housing

needs of the poor are still not being adequately met.

HOUSING CODE ENFORCEMENT

A report, published by the Texas Urban Development

Commission and prepared by several University of Houston professors,

indicates that two methods of enforcement are employed by the

Houston Housing Code Enforcement Section. These include:

"systematic and individual complaints. " The authors further point 137

out that "systematic code enforcement involves designation of certain areas and then a dwelling-by-dwelling inspection byevaluators."3

Each approach has as its aim the improvementofentire neighborhoods through code enforcement. The report also points out that systemati c code enforcement is1 imi ted to Model Nei ghborhoods while individual complaints cover the total city.

In black neighborhoods, code enforcement is not applied equally in all areas. Physical deterioration is widespread in many minority areas of Houston. In many cases, inspectors report what can be seen on the surface. Rats and rodent infestation goes unnoticed. The 1972 Comprehensive Plan for the Model City Department of the City of Houston contains several functional problem areas of the Physical Environmental component. Housing conditions were considered to be a hi gh priority item in the plan. Specific housing conditions were listed as: (1) high frequency of substandard housing; (2) lack of low-income housing resources; (3) lack of coordination of effort on the part of the city; and (4) lack of available loans for repairs. There is some evidence to suggest that many of the problems listed here still exist in Houston, although some progress has been made in rehabilitating sections of low income areas. Indicators of progress in this regard include the upgrading of about 4100 dwelling units to meet the minimum housing standards through the Code Enforcement programs. Of the 138

total upgrades, about 109 were financed through the "Rehabilitation

Revolving Fund." A substantial number of structures have also

been demolished through the Model Cities "Demolition of Unsafe

Buildings" program. There are still many more structures in

need of complete demolition. Street lights have been installed

in some model neighborhoods.

One of the basic goals of the Model Cities program was to increase the supply of standard housing available to

indigenous residents of Model Neighborhoods and in other areas

in which they want to live and at costs they can afford. This

goal has not been fully achieved. Again, low income persons

are not receiving the benefits of adequate and decent housing

in the City of Houston. Even the agency admits that "there have been few perceptible changes in the physical appearance of

Houston's fourteen (14) square mile inner city since the Model 4 Cities program was implement. This statement was made in 1972.

It could be that some progress has been made since then.

However, as late as March 15, 1973, Houston's inner city

area included in the Model Cities program (Model Neighborhood

area) contained 33,000 dwelling units of which 39 percent are in

violation of the city's "Minimum Housing Code." Of these an estimated 3,000 units are unfit for habitation. The report states, "in light of these facts, there is an evident need for

an aggressive program of demolition of unsafe structures and a 139

mechanismto provide housing rehabilitation loans to those Model

Neighborhood residents who are unable to obtain loans through

conventional means due to low income or poor credit."

Cut off from the "conventional" sources of financing,

the black low income resident is either forced to deal with

highly questionable speculators or he must buy on a contractual

basis for a period of years at higher interest rates. If the

low income person chooses the "contract basis" he can be evicted

and dispossessed within a short time, if he defaults on a payment.

The speculator can then re-sell the property. A Social Planner

for the Houston Urban League talked with us about this practice

in Houston. She related cases where blacks are being sold homes

in Windsor Village, located in Southwest Houston. White realtors

are putting people in homes ranging in prices from $19,000 to

$28,000. Some of these individuals do not have money or credit

to pay the prices asked for the homes. "They are buying under

something called "contract sales," said the Planner. She

further stated that they do not have a clear understanding of what is going on and "they have merely accepted the realtor's word and they think they are buying a house. Actually they are

renting." One student at Texas Southern University corroborated

this story by stating that she was placed in a house under

similar condition, because the realtor wanted to protect the white

owner's credit. Other cases involved obvious acts of discrimination 140

and block busting,--tactics used in frightening white owners into selling through a campaignofclaiming that the neighborhood

is turning black and house values are declining.

There has been a great dealofserious studyofvarious

types of housing in Houston and of the reactions of residents to

their living environments. One such study was conducted by

the Urban Resources Center at Texas Southern University. The study's aim was to determine the extent to which Housing Code

Enforcement in Houston contributed to better living condi tions

for low income blacks. Over 100 homes were selected at random

from low income areas. The Housing Code used by Houston was

utilized in inspecting homes and assessing the physical condition

of the dwellings. In addition, the occupants were interviewed

on particular questions concerning the neighborhood in aeneral.

Using the Houston Housing Code as a source, a checklist of the standards was devised for measuring conditions of housing in the

sampling area. In the study, it was found that the most

crucial problem was plumbing. Other defective conditions, not

covered in the Houston Housing Code, were found. Of all dwellings surveyed, 13 percent had rusty or rotten screens on the windows;

ten percent had no wall-type convenience electrical outlets; eight percent needed interior papering or paneling; and 6 percent

of the homes had broken windows. Because of unkept vacant lots

and buildings, the areas are found to be plagued with rodents, 141

insects, and other pests. Over 80 percent of the renters included in this study complained of poor maintenance habits by the absentee landlords.5 All respondents indicated that there is need for comprehensive planning in the four neighborhoods --

Third, Fourth, and Fifth Wards and Acres Homes -- surveyed.

The need for planning on a neighborhood basis cannot be

gainsaid. A federation of program components which touch every aspect of a living environment is needed. "Controls such as

deed restrictions, capacities cf water and sewer services,

access and site requirements" are emphases stressed in the 1973

Community Development Statement for the City of Houston. The

report further acknowledges that housing is a priority issue

in Houston. The 1970 Census shows that there are approximately

54,000 households with incomes below the standard set by the

OfficeofEconomic Opportunity. About 50,000 families live in substandard housing, many of which are elderly and/or renters.

Houston does not have a sufficient number of public housing

units to accommodate the number of persons in need. The local housing authority has estimated a need for 10,000 additional

unitsoffederally-assisted low rent housing.Our surveyof low income neighborhoods in 1973 indicated that this figure is too low. Adjustments for condemnations and demolitions must be included in the estimated figure. 142

From the aforementioned discussions, the following are some concerns expressed by minority community residents:

1. Moderate and upper income blacks should devise methods where unscrupulous realtors, brokers, and lending institutions can be made known to potential bvers in this income bracket.

2. Slum dwellers should be educated about the bureaucracy. Slum residents are often pawns of bureaucrats in urban renewal and highway programs.

3. Minority groups should carefully investigate any builders whose appeal is beamed to them exclusively. Prices are usually exorbitant, guarantees are few, and workmanship is general ly poor.

4. Low income renters should especially be aware of the "turning process." All too often the owner of an apartment building decides to increase his profit by shifting to low-income-minority group occupancy while reducing services and increasing the number of rent payers in the same place. The technique is time-tested. It was the case in the Palm Center area of Houston; along the Eastex Freeway; and in the South Park area. The owner moves minority group families into apartments and immediately reduces the level of maintenance. This serves to drive whites out. The result is a gradual development of new slums.

5. Black potential buyers should be very careful about housing inspection and appraisals conducted by real estate companies. It is an observed fact that most middle and upper middle class blacks are much more affluent than thier white

predecessors . In many instances, they pay more for homes in areas of transition than they would in a new development. White 143

appraisers will often list numerous items in need of repair, if the seller is black; they overlook similar defects if the seller is white.

6. Black real estate companies should organize in the interest of providing credibility of the shelter business in Houston. There is need for sustained counseling with low income persons about the concept of "contract buying." These recommendations do not carry racial overtones. The intent is to protect the "victim" from being abused, and the logical means would be through knowledge- able real estate agents.

7 Whites pay a terrific economic and social cost for discrimination in housing. Panic selling, inflammatory actions and disturbing rumors take tolls among low income dwellers, and suburbanites move from place to place in quest of "lily white" areas only to find that with each move, they lose money and credits. The block busting techniques are carefully designed by the real estate industry to create new, higher profit markets. There is evidence that similar techniques are practiced in Houston. Many of the homes in Brent Wood, Keswick Place, and Cambridge Village went up for sale after cards were placed in mailboxes warn- ing owners that the areas were turning black. Houses in these areas have changed owners from two five times during the past five years.'

Immediate Actions Areas

1. The federal Eair.Housing law should be applied uniformly in all parts of the city. An Affirmative action program should be imple- mented which would insure integrated housing and destroy the dual market for housing in Houston. Restrictive convenants have no place in this democracy, in Houston, in the rent, purchase, or sale of housing. 144

2. The involvement of intelligent citizens in matters of community planning and development is essential, if we are to move housing availability from narrow interests into broader interests for the total community.

3. In dealing with housing inadequacy, dialogue in needed between the planners, local government officials, federal agencies, and community resi dents concerning the cri ti cal state of housing in the city.

4. Building codes, health regulations, and housing code enforcement are essentials in efforts to eliminate unsuitable living environments in black areas. The Housing Code for Houston is in need of serious overhauling, and vigorous enforcement in deteriorating neighborhoods in needed. Housing Code enforcement must also take into consideration shelter supply because of the possibility that some buildings might be condemned.

Finally, housing is one of the areas which contributes to continues segregation in Houston. Anti-busing advocates insist on open housing as an alternative to the busing of school children from their immediate neighborhoods. Yet, few of the persons who participate in marches against the busing of school children will lift their voices in support of open housing in

Houston and elsewhere. Many of these same citizens are aware of acts of discrimination in housing, and few, if any, will extend the hand of friendship and cooperation to black neighbors. The future of Houston depends in large measure on effective, open housing practices; a common market for housing rather than a dual one; and aggressive administrative action on the part of city 145

officials to insure equal justice in housing, education, employment, health, and related areas for the entire citizenry.

Tables 69 through 83 give data on owner occupied dwellings in Houston and the total SMSA. Selected characteristics on appliances, gross rental rates, housing values, household composition, age of structures, and gross percentages of income spent on housing by income level, and sex of household head are also given for occupied dwellings. M§§§§ §§§ cgs ,s.;.;;,,4c 7,6.; (146) ., 242423 »A it 4.7 F.,

Og5.9,588g:88 8S88SS8 888 88 SSSi MNN M

3 WNZNkOmmCOMN m,MMAN cn RE' NnN mN.-Nme4

9999.9999. 000 0099 99. p 0 r`9'1

R' r.z.2.p 2V" g5.3: ZCA 00 00000000 . mmme...... 09 90m-. 9 Nm-999

2 r N ^^ N grig.g.E.R _ NNMN,WN N .2- 0000000000 ...... 9999999 999 999 999 N In VI n N NNemNMN NWV

§ 8 Z8ZEVG2= R2R EXP'P 1. ^ ^- W b e W ^^ e " 4R' 0000000000 0999999 000 000 000 .»- M00+,4MIMMMMWN *NN *rN

0...mONN m N - ni.s7 M 4.0 NMM co» 000 909 COMO*NNNNMM9999..9999 00**.e0 °NM

2 88,T, Ntn; 55E §E" , , ON re 0. O. N , Nip N P Ommtn Wm f9MN M 0000000000 099990 9 .0m999 p7,*999 990NNW

eMmpWCOM 8g ZWF4F+7 8 °NM...INN* MMNM^ eMe PMe 1.122 mODM NM 0 * e 0 Le, * NW.1.0.-N O ...... **no. eNNNNMOPM CO mNNef.-MCO N, ,N .0°9999.09 0 999999 999 999 999 MCOOM*N. NMO ONg.1,

wl.e5m,mnmulpp me**.-m _. 02,0M 25 v ZSG'enr::g2=2 S'N *NM Nm CON . . . . 5 eNN*NNNW a 9°9999.... 0000000...... 000 000 ONO NWINNWO, CO-Ln crt.-MNN

2 NNM,NeappNNNWPMCAM..f...,.. pQ OMMO.m0eypeNNN NmeM.N NWWMN, Qp4Sm ;.§. NO*Omem IN 01...NNm,% *N.. ,C..., eNN. -I* N 4.- *7 *Nem IN e M 00 0.0.00,» 90 0 0 990 .'9 999 .79 --*...... NNNMeNa. w N INN, Ag§gg§ OA A g ktgAg§g§§g§A§§t wf 55;FY1' Et":

W ",11ZM aty g§ NINN OW ninalatIgEei

to O 666666 616.A, 6666666666666616 K0 y .....

xlszay 4.§ 2 Einfz14.1.1.12.1;6' N M 0, rW w.m Z: 000000 ===

* VI'; ..g$,, ..:-1.4W,Ett" 'f3". ,7 -'5' t IC -;-,g, 88888'8 888 8 8 -n8888888888888 ..-... - - -..., !,_!--7.rr!,,p.7,77:P-F,

gg=.1 EEEnEsS4;51:M1- ig k AirJoy

666066 666 0 o 000000000000000

metn1 K

QpN Ny W ,,V0"40 N, 666666 666 6 6 o 0 0 0 60 666666660 A,0 CZ o.00o..Low.n0aa

SSZ,,7,tV. ge,11

000006 000 O 66U6666666666,66 wv,zg .11=Ciioe-Z=.Z5,55=g;Zi

$ 10'41ogigeTgaZaZin. NO ti710,11 N=i2LAN g --.g55A0g

0 666666 00 O 660006066.000066 owa.4ma0cno,,yin..8,

O v.t.ly&w:A =8$1 z S; ' o*-. O

0 0 0 666666 6 N6 oom6666666oao66 fT=7/0,NN 1.470 tl ?0,C001040,COMinNNO..

a., .. .,:vtr.tfg ,gg ... NM1 01....0,%4N i PI'qt2EEA:-7 ,...... POW. V. WWWN NW NN. re, It NWO 0 O. 06666 6 6 ° 666066 66666660 by 0, CO 1.1 00 0, 0, PIZ,Wf.o.-. 0 ro; F. =. = . .

10,.J.tMN.v GO NW It 000 O W,N660066 N0, 6 666aO6666.666666 O-

--0 ,ALA W WIlpfiiSF.ge..9DM:4; 0m..0 =11 8 (148) C 48k88k kkk k k 8k8kkkkkkkkkk44

8 A

R88 rz.

888888 888 1 8 3888888888 888

999 ^..55

3 H4 Ag AREg".i..24*SA . .

. 999999 999 9 9 999999999999999 V74.,2 '": rsn 2 'R "'"0""m--w000

* F'FF.42':H.EiM9.

6 9 09 009 09 0 0 . 999999999999999

ta7,17A ,71 aa

. 999999 999 ? 99999999999:99 ge- e 4A=2.2R2...1;4-1

2CiM, 'S1 7, p...3R,7,12,9:7gxr.Aer4 aa

. 99990,; 999 9 9999999999999999 ;;22.222;!,W3227.=2

EiEin.F-EF5R.5

4 . 999999 000 9 90000992220002999999

2S2';20- °42= PMS: i7iq'REIgF

Z88888 87,1' 8 8888828888888888 " o'

2.R W R

oun. .1 11 id'ftiii1g3 5 f'2 e-51,1AsIr5t2r1Lsrs.Tr V5535ti ii111323i-lYke 110. T .50 1,2 (6t0 gmg§§§§§ iNggkg t§§ r'"7"."5 7""

Egor;

61,70.17, § ZG, G2t 4g SZN

Sttt '''G;t88'2 828 882

,. 822748G .4. 822 002225=.mG2 $ D:Eo: 1§.. rr.., F 8888888882 8888888 888

1E NS YU

6666666666 .006006 000 n;:g 000

2E W8 = 66 66666666 666 666 000 0000000 ;p1W= cor, 11," =r-t:m:56,o.co 7,

EE .gEnntt: g Ag GE;

" 0000000000 0000000 666 000 000 7.03,7 8 8

g gEr 4.51 rr F

or, r...7=z;000O000060 .6660 666 6

8MM'z E. . ,.FL4 . .

6666666666 6666666 666 666 666 8 WW8GWGG 8 G= GWW X 8 EE E V05:1,:EE M:m"- 8 r F 6666666666 8888888 888 888 888 ,oGGGW8W

rgEM;EgE ar 55Y, :.. ?

8888888888 8888E88 848 888 sas

....22828W 442 288 gi At 2.7

rgE NN.*rat

4.-!TEEEEn -g aa gE7gggggGgm. Rosi AoLor,li gilggggggE; sgmursf ,W ^ (150) mm??i §§ Hmommoul

* 9999'".9 7999 er, 22.'.2222:

,TtgX.:1,7A "=1R

000.,no * 22.222222222

X FCRPS'";;I _ "

999999 999 0 2222222222.222 7R.:2

1E72:s

99, 222222.°.222.22.

3 RE guFng 5-:v r2EEP--gg'ss' o gx 9 9999900 . °°°°. ,r2m999 9 ze.nz4.;gOo4eig4

RE- Fl2M"2 "''4^7J4

900 9 W ° °°°°°°°°°°°°°°.7..R.,1:=52WWWOOWV..

PA3351""11'47"'

09 09 0 0 7 09 00009 0009 09 00 2

. :i, 4.11*F.3P 4 gv: 4 44

'4! * 999999 99 9 9999999999999999 "-.Twa N 7

2 - 2 §E -4'n,H., EV z E Mf7'.31.T4EF.,srt --,..- ^ - 0 . 4 8 « ,99999 000 9 0 999999999999999

.0.. 0. Ni VUEEP.6357;

.. f212 2 222,2222222°9°99.",,,,

iR,!,FilM§n")4E

1 1 Ogn7 5 iti'44;":3CPCI" 9999k 21k 4,104A:24202k 411°11 2 2;1 mii§E§§0 mqkci igAm 4§. RR§ =:.4 =4 =4,..; (151)

P.O 00; :L1.12,7M 7:"1

=;:f.04 .1:17

§E p ag.74.2747, vg.

0 0000000 720 = 99 -tzt

nxl Rpm §E § ,23:74S3A

00000 0000 H f::12 2:.

3 §E 81'4A'VX §284F2A 4§2 RS' ;IP 35 0000000 99.0. 99, 999 740004.0740 ...... °A= 3° 47.'

gE § ..4135374;E, ax Fa' 5.:3 = 9999999999 9999999 999 99, 999

3 ,'44m*r.v.ir= § MUP

0000000000 0000000 ono oo, 000

g Elag..*In3 IV' 35 i53 aa

9990 .90 9999 9909999 000 999 999 r4==k2." W472ARMA, rs'4 A'8

2 FIFEallP g ui;iEns.1R '14 ZN' ggE

9999999999 0900 999 990 009 099 A242A2R0" .4'^248;.;

25M:97.4SA 8 17,ggi4§ 2.=°' pRA 4

r 0000000000 0N0

N01NVaONm§ 744!.iGn 24°

g .3HN" =w4 074 4 101

si n ...0 §,- i"gREEffEkktsix -i»151 ff in = K IIZA 13 733h "°T -i- 0.55525!!.1 !mini nhili !III

7.. rt M M,,qu;..@. ..Am,VoN'SmM "g2 ,'' I .m .. 00000000000000 0 0000000 t. N1,N 5 C . r 33 § _41 3 .1 8 eV NN . ,..M

00009000000000000000000 N 0,,4,X.NNNW..^ ^,M. rt /MMINM01N Z 171'''04Z6N N .7 0 9999990'".'!19"1".'1,°: 72,2

ypb . "°"1--'^ RF4W,2,748'14M Vi.2'.11 CI WON..,...WM.,a- 4."

900 09900999°99900°99991 9 Nrs."gig!R0.0.00N MMN 2t ZS § §;1?7, 282F.,°° Wil'""

. A . "' '0'1'11 7'17"1 7':1', '1119 ..t 2 O 2 T, O ,r ".4NNR. uu.. . . .NN. et N VN 0 0000000000000000090.009 t W...... INN. a7n

O vt HRREk. ;.=7.1"312"

0 9999999999999999999999 M1 ....M.NmNNM,NNN.r. mmv...n4

Ag2VP;:. A9^^ '-'2 S" eqc,Ar..m. '8' n 4 O

4,1 0 000000 000000 00000 00000 ....M NNNMYa...m

A 7., 2g2'gl .;rjgg RR,V."'M po0 ...... ,, ,.gg.,...... -.."..:z ._ m.o. ,,,,, ,.., ...,

P0 00..,,mm 00 99 099909mm,n. 00999 990 99

c4 egoA.;.zga ggM.M. .N.WN .., W W,,.., ..7.1W.... ;.,N.',",... AR ',1-14"9 ...... N.N.N ...M. ., 9 090099 009999 9900. 09000 R ""' -,ZAARZ2 :=1,1;ARI 4 i.0 C OW,PNM MN,' M W.MN

O 000000000e4c 999999 99999 99,',9 mm.0,. .wo, ....N.m. W..Am g, A gm n.1

Z g i5 E V«.2 t.25t. ocztt gi&tV KEY

2fik"5% '12k&/'. "IWZt5 ;2"Z 2gnAsg -gtax tiziK 1z 5.22" § °" 52z Z §t S.NR42 ,;11840§:"°' .1N. 7, EV" HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION FOR NKR AND RENTER OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS Table 73 WITH NEGRO HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD: 1970 11EN. Total YearsUnder 25 Years25Male to Head,34 Wife Present. No Years35 to 44 Marelatives Years45 to 55 65 Yearsand Over YearsUnder 65 Other Male Head 65 Years Under 65 Fess1e Head 65 Years One Person Household Gross Rent as PercentageSpecifiedof Income Renterby Income: Occupied2 48,110 9.0 4,156 16.0 7,634 10.0 and Over Years and Over YearsUnder 65 and65 Years Over Less than 55,000:20Less to than24 percent 20 percent to 34 percent 27,642 2,7712.258 6.07.0 1.688 185158 10.0 9.07.0 1.935 195 6.05.0 1,3144,727 133 10.0 8.07.0 1.8134.771 191 3.002.002.00 7,172 825 78 7.05.05,0 1,2862..S23 .76.59 212284 32.022.0 10.7688,726 2.00 807 18.0 8,835 5.00 2.428 Not3525 percent computed or sore 14,4382.2255,900 3.05.09.0 744525 76 3.06.09.0 829560285 66 2.03.07.09.0 492395244 SO 12.0 5.05.08.0 116688446322 2.003.003.00 451169 4384 4.05.06.0 596269161152 1.00 .85.25.79 124 152229 35.030.023.026.0 1,741 649579 1.002.00 117642 4139 22.024.028.025.0 1.3266,842 666642 5.004.003.009.00 2.359 287112 62 55.000 to 59,899:3520Less to than3424 percent 20 percent 11.651 16.1062,7101.341 16.015.013.0 1,4972,142 211395 29.025.0 2.4674,141 786 17.0 1,9782,660 453 10.015.014.0 2,1971,751 258 1.002.00 227299 5.06.0 1,028 608 108 .32.29.96 384822 10.029.0 1,6315,085 672 3.002.00 .68 110380 65 11.031.024.0 1,7813,501 707 15.0010.00 .42 1,548 350 510.000 to 514.999/Not 35computed percent or more 297107 9.0 2910 13.023.024.0 323 4025 11.015.0 - 197 32 - 25.020.0 7.13 732293 3.001.00 - 101745 - 19.014.0 2.07.0 795201 19 .37 -5 12.010.0 8.09.0 1,142 122318 9 6.00 .89.44.64 1275 6 12.011.0 8.0 1,331 161227 .37.55.11 153769 5 20Less to than24 percent 20 percent 3.3243,459 14 8.0 268273 64.038.0 1.2711,315 9 17.0 589605 16.0 526570 - .75.86 2530 4.0 139 5 2.00 .40 14 5 13.0 9.0 299 40 2.00 .80 5 18.0 9.0 5210 2.006.00 6 6 $15,000 or sore: Not25 percentcomputed or more 903110 11 5.0 5 31.0 - 35 - 45.036.0 5.0 65 5 40,0 44 - 5,00 - 5 _ . -_ - .42 14 - 55.0 9.0 - 289 6 - _- .84 28 - 5.0 - 175186 - - 2520Less percentto than24 percent 20or percentmore 818 - - 6,06.0 53 26.027.0 - 232243 - 17.016.0 148 - 21.02/.0 186191 _ 3.003.00 23 8.07.0 6570 - 1.00 1010 13.012.0 4.0 112 4 3.00 - 27 - 10.0 3.0 2611 - 1.6scludes one-iamily Not cemputed homes on 10 acres or sore 25 44.0 11' - 70,0 5- 20.0 5 - _ 112 - - 3.00 -_ 27 _ 16.0 3.0 - 22 4- -_ NtiN$ m WnWnn ,,$,. 1$1 A (154)

0 000000 m0000 .e 0 0 -.-.11 0 000 I

Wzio.N.0.1 0,n ul kp N N 0 00000000000000 00 4 ^O 1010000000000M0.000 10100

r za 2 M.-M M.,ti 11111

M00M.-. 0000 .0.! N.-1600000

.40V.VMVW...

O 09900000000000 000 00M In 1n0

.0 1 1 1. COW .3.1 11,11 a

OW,O. 0NM O 000N 000000 2 8' 2gi.I O .10.z.1.. N

00 0 00 9 999999999999 ..0sl

o E MMMmli. bA 0 999999 00 000 00-000999.

. .0.,,...... g..70.,,,C0A ..,....1 u,p,10 nu cp..- we cam 0 e IN 9 000000 000000. 00 0 0 O M00.010 . . 000 "N'.. 74S

O W.. M MMM.11, NM Inv. NM P O 000000 000000 000 . 00 . W1M00. NN A.!.A4 .0N N N 8

0 000000 000000 00000 00 0 NvMV.10.v. 010MWm RR0 6 mN.- MMNNMN epeem 0.-....1. . mevvrv-is00 . eMMo. v0 . . No oVMM.-00N q .0

.....- o 000000 000000 00000 00

. M 0, 10...... 0 0MMN,. MNmm. 0N.-PV-..mMM...... VM0MN 0M.-...7. ..- ., .. 0,..- - . EN , ...., W..- en 0 -...... W,10.1.11NN WM00003,0WO,, (155)

MCON.40, WMIN § VINmMMF0N UR WM 882F.2s8 88888888800

§E 802P!P1M-9 r,A8 0W 88888888 888 LA.r;

999990.99000 2M2P.XM24

O 0000000...... 9990.9°09 0.1NfJNO4N(WN

3 w0 bb Mr1

9990 .9999 0 0 9

3 Mo5o.onntywr.m0M-.00,...0 ono

00000,0 MMITWOIWO

0000000...... 99999999 999 O 8=8

9 0 99999 99999999 999

2 R' m.w 60 ,T,R=7888 . . '1,RUli 4.; ...... 99999999999 ,T1'f%T w,mwww,ow .DeQn

r.9 22,7,^.*;""n4

88888888882 ,8'.gg2-PT ,,,;.,-: 0.:.

7, =.9,O.7 1887;4'1382'.& .°.° ..-°. .1° '4R174.T2 12.07,34c77'RV` (156) MEM§ 5A§ :oZ.4Y44

88888888 888

88888888 888 zng

§F NM

2?.$12E2g V21

98888888 888

0'70999? ?°°99999 00°

§ 4 88888888 888

§)11 .5;.5ia?AI Vir" .72:2 88888888 888 .4.44

__ W

MZ8888 88888888 888 z ,,flmo

2 P?i",c7(1 = 4

2aVg:;SO 7%,!'ij

! t gl 2 E 8azevitE t sg e,,..IP5 '!tltNIT1 ioll5AS 1.0 r- 7,E; 5 s-, (157) MUM § u;c.,;444. 4ic4ori

0 9 9 11,.9 999 999

Ri ?-"174

0 000 000 p:,4e;

Nw--4 iq nf7i Utg R mu 0 999999 999 999 g-r. f2 R7,

§E FIER p24 2 ae .0.- A 0000000 000 900 a §

99999990000.-0 000 999

§E Fz.nialt 'RE W

S. 999 999 ::m.WWKNO19999999 WWW NWP

§ P6V-ar4'; W; 5 9999°9? 999 999 ,r47,zw r W N 0en.

0000000000 000 0;4,;IR0. .c...r05,4,4

3 V411- P.^3 44 0m00000 000 000 grapvd,. 444 a4p44

7,7.,MgVZ

9'199°99 999 99' 0,00. cr...

'11.4 I 7o ivmnrNN.

g S327.RSU ?3I (158)

N P oh

n"..4a4 7,", t " 8 8888888 888

3 n qm=AHE .24444 2c !N !- 8 88888 88 " 88

2g »v. 8 :;! °°:.4233'

A ET Z5E3.-7.:13

RA'

MEM A-S

222o9o9

40%2a...a 030, ;2= '42.; .0,

I 1 1190 f-M 5 i, s 2.R.ssss0 1022 tr02:2R,T,Ai :10,N1 X 5 ER zgzssicaz (690 it

! n,;

...V Ft

vtlItaa

-3.78,7.. Sat

?!88888:1 888

psEn5A7.

06166666 666 m=0,0,tm. mtg

....i,666.0OO

nb a liet 066'0666 00 O =VROitk!D 2W4

ntl5En IX 7 77777 "

bbObbOO '0;*6 omumoam 4.21

g U2)745AX 6

6060000 'caO O to ww.momm Z:mm O

a t OlattAr. EX RR 888

.P.S4 "iEZ- 1'16 666b6O6 ..m.u.m0; 000

1 (160)

S -

5 4 2gnyidnX

9999999 2Am999

99999'99 999

9999999 999 gr'2 s 5»7se5= r."7:

9999990 °"°

9999999 999 7.1:57.'^72"-2

C!;,1n,1

VOINN, .1:4O PERSONS IN ONNER AND RENTER OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS WITH HOUSEHOLD HEAD OF SPANISH LANGUAGE OR SPANISH SURNAME: Table 81 1970 Owner Occupied Housing Units ITEM 16,138 Total 1 Person 746 5 2 Persons 2.542 S 3 Persons 2,693 S 4 Persons 3,113 S 5 Persons 2.404 6 Persons 1,897 7 Persons 1,438 S or8 Persons More 1.305 Median 4.2 Household Composition:Two-or-morehouseholds: personMale head, wife present, 15,392 0 2,542 17 2,693 17 3.113 20 2,404 16 1,897 12 1,438 9 1,305 8 4.3 no nonrelatives:Under 25 years 13,574 488 2,040 103 2115 _ 2,195 165 173416 2,827 125 2621 2,178 41 16 8 1,773 358 33 1113 6 1,350 336 14 10 3 1,211 217 7 719 4.43.4 453525 to 644434 years 4,3794,5363,262 909 - 913289272 5121 68 895374550 20 8 891847867 11201927 569870662 36 201319 4 433912 37 1020 4 333622 45 14 57 345622 20 14 28 2.53.95.4 Other male head: 65Under years 65 andyears over 643120523 ... - 463122188 66 55232, 110138211 28 21?3 105 2085 16 108 - Il17 - 25 - 54 2733 6 5 46 - 097 2.43.83.5 Female head: 65Under years 65 yearsand over 1,175 989186 - 101213314 542227 341360 19 10343123 163IFI 18 16Is 9 118 7692 10 -9 ea99.1 13 98 44SS11 13 45 48Ad -54 2.43.3 Value-Income Ratio: SpecifiedOne-person owner households occupied! 15,095 746 632746 100 4 2,289 ... 15- 2,517 ... 17 2.941 ... 19- 2,294 - 15 1,847 12 1,375 ... 9 1,200 8- 4.21.0... 2.01.5Less to than 1.92.4 1.5 1,1202,4189,084 104 4867 341 1,000 244389 221611 1,456 226435 201816 1,846 249542 2220 1,544 373135 121517 1,272 226135 101214 9 1,008 207 2734 11 439 854179 49 5479 3.74.14.63.7 Not4.03.02.5 tocomputedor 3.9more2.9 1,020 692626135 279 457118 332710 258243146 9 253523 7 125118 32 24121720 106 9398 7 101316 5 119 6352 8 19 68 88496314 10 97 4943 7 6 5 13522330 10 5 3 2.82.92.4 Renter Occupied Housing Units 'Limited to one-family homes on less than 10 acres and no business on property 20,147 2,513 4,211 4,199 3,074 2,314 1,519 1.423 894 3.3 Table 82 1970 ITEM Total 1 Person PERSONS IN OWNER AND RENTER OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS WITH HOUSEHOLD HEAD OF 2 Persons 3 Persons 4 Persons SPANISH LANGUAGE OR SPANISH5 Persons SURNAME: 6 Persons 7 Persons S or8 PersonsMore Median Household Composition:Two-or-more person 24 24 17 2,314 13 1,519 9 1,423 8 894 5.0 3.6 households:Male head,no wife nonrelatives: present,Under 25 years 17,63414,068 3,284 - 1,0152.9394,211 3121 4,1991,3193.403 4024 2,5223,074 565 1817 1,975 232 1418 7 1.268 545 63 10 29 1,221 386 81 9 72 740143 14 3.05.0 .4 4.03.03.8 25 to4535 34to years6444 years 2,2862,6645,436 398 - 147572285920 11372517 1,265 246477 96 232421. 9 1.182 442282 56 14121722 414995312 22 1415 5 293326 41 101213 533192 29 20 78 418-158_ 12 7 16.0 5,4 2.07.0 3.03.8 Other male head: 65Under years 65 yearsand over 1,2671,191 76 488529 41 425441 328353 , 25 28193328 332220 - 14-1817 253 86 - 11 -7 223 281018 1013 2 1 163 39 - 7-3 142 12 - 6.01.0 3.4 2.8- 2.8 One-person householdFemale head: 65Under years 65 yearsand over 2,5132,2992.175 124 2.513 100 - 676743... 67 -543132 433443... 10 -20 8 299... 33 2614- 246... 7 11 -6 216... 7 10 -6 163 - 0 7 142 - 06.0 - 1.02.43.5 Gross Rentof as Name: PercentageSpecified Renter Occupied2 19,899 2,482 12 6 4,137 506 21 4,163 461 2119 3,029 373 15 2,307 353 1412 1,485 203 87 1,402 233 97 894173 4.07.0 3.83.3 10Less to than14 percent 10 percent . 4,7512,461 345154 7 877 19 926 20 875 18 585 1312 444298 89 295450 89 147249 3.05.0 3.33.8 252015 to 193424 percent 2,3492,3503.818 215346397 2417 9 803527502725 24222119 1.023 687500465 272120 383336423502 12181314 282231300482 1013 8 .133 194167 67 6 122168 95 375 156 8157 2.07.0 2.63.03.5 2Not35 Excludes percent,computed one-family or more homes on 10 acres or more 3,325 845 225800 27 197 23 101 12 132 16 74 9 46 5 39 4 31 4.0 2.5 PERSONS IN OWNER AND RENTER OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS WITH HOUSEHOLD HEAD OF SPANISH LANGUAGE OR SPANISH SURNAME: Table 83 1970 ITEM Total I Person 2 Persons 3 Persons 4 Persons 5 'Persons 6 Prrsons 7 Persons % or8 PersonsMore Median Year Structure Built:1969 to March 1970 622 94 15 280 45 96 15 74 12 32 5 39 6 7 1 - 2.3 1940195019601965 to 1949195919641968 5,4804,3601,9261.524 574541245258 11121317 897891519586 20162739 1,275 931452368 232124 908692316205 171613 735449203 61 1310 4 403324110 26 762 425344 4220 821 263188 39 - 542 3.53.32.92.4 Units in Structure:One1939 or earlier 10,924 6,235 791801 13 7 1,7021,038 1517 2,0741,077 1917 1,813 879 1714 1,515 834 1413 1,168 617 1110 1,130 585 10 9 731404 76 4.03.7 ...... C71.--I Two53 toand 9 4 1,0081,6892,369 221254260 221511 262464480 262720 231400545 2324 250391124 121517 191298 92 1112 9 193 2953 38 116 3458 35 151986 14 2.62.83.3 -.... CA) Mobile20 or10 moretohose 19 or trailer 2,8571,255 45 655332 2326 - 997300 6 133524 615320 14 312125 311178 7 151114 155 63 - -5 5125 - -2 5323 9 20 2 2014 9 20 1 1 2.32.5 Complete Bathrooms: 1 and 1 Is Mune2 or ormore alsoanother used householdby 18,361 807979 2,200 240 73 3012 7 3,853 126232 162421 3,909 206 84 1021 2,800 184 90 111915 2,138 107 69 1312 7 1,391 4682 687 1,317 5749 7 75 753 5784 784 2.93.43.3 164

FOOTNOTES

1U. S. Department of Labor, "The Social and Economic Status of Negroes in the United States," BLS Report No. 394, Bureau of Census, U. S. Department of Commerce, 1970, pp. 87-93.

2Michael A. Stegman, "The New Mythology of Housing," in Hadden, et al., Metropolis in Crisis (Itasca, Illinois: F. E. Peacock Pub-Fishers, Inc., (1971)), pp. 267-75.

3John Mixon, Tom F. Lord, and M. Winston Martin, Housing Issues in Texas (Arlington, Texas: Texas Urban Development Commission Report, (1971)), pp. 48-56.

4Comprehensive Plan Third Action Year, Model Cities Department, City of Houston (October, 1727; and Communit Development Statement For the City of Houston, Texas (March 1

5Annie Harris, Housing Code Enforcement and the Black Community, (Houston, Texas: Publication of the Urban Resources Center in Texas Southern University, (1973)).

6For an examination of the housing situation in the United States, with reference to individual cities, seer Whitney M. Young, Jr., Decent Housing: Whose Responsibility? (A Publication of the National Urban League, New York City). CHAPTER 4

HEALTH CARE AND THE BLACK POPULATION

Few issues in recent years have stirred more impassioned debate than the subject of health care. Proposals for compulsory health insurance and the establishment of a national health program represent responses to the concern for health services in the nation,

A recent article, "The Economics of Health Care," discusses the spiraling medical costs and the uneven quality and distribution of health services in this country. "Last year," the article reports, "close to $80 billion -- up from

$76 billion in the previous year -- was spent on health care nationally, making it the third largest industry in the United

States .Still, an estimated 40 million Americans, most of them

1 poor -- receive less than adequate medical attention."

The concern over medical costs and health services is not just limited to poor people or the nation's minorities.Middle

America also faces the financial burden of mushrooming prices for health service delivery. Over 80 percent of this group carries some type of voluntary health insurance, yet few can afford or sustain the burden of prolonged illness by virtue

165 166

of rising prices for hospital and medical care. In 1970, it was reported that the average cost of hospitalization per day was about $70. In larger cities such as New York and

Boston, the cost was much higher, ranging from a high of

$110 in New York to a high of $103 in Boston. It is estimated by some experts that by 1973 the national average will approximate at least $98 per day.

Despite the fact that America spends more per capita for health care than other countries, the nation's poor, black and other minorities, and the middle class experience grave difficulty in receiving and paying for health care.

Rural families suffer from a lack of adequate health care even more. Caught in a cycle of poverty and some ignorance, the rural poor suffer from malnutrition, sickle cell anemia, heart and lung disease, and many other unattended ills. Studies have also shown that "in cities where hospital clinics have largely replaced the family physician, poor people usually have to wait long hours fortreatment."2 A survey of the health care of the poor and of minorities in Houston by the Urban Resources

Center in Texas Southern University indicates that this same condition exists in Houston.

A great deal of the inadequacies concerning health care and treatment in Houston are attributable to the limited supply of black physicians in the nation. Only two percent of the nation's estimated 332,000 physicians are black, and although 167

some attempts have been made to increase the number of blacks entering the medical profession, progress has been relatively

slow. However, some changes in enrollment have been noted.

An analysis of black enrollment in all medical schools,

including students from Houston, shows a constant numerical figure of 220 up until 1971-72. Through special public and private grants, the enrollment for black medical students in the nation as a whole climbed to 881 in 1971-72. This is a drastic change in enrollment patterns when measured from the standpoint of previous years.

Prior to 1967, over 80 percent of the black physicians in

America were trained in two predominantly black medical institutions, despite the fact that most medical schools in the country were receiving federal aid. Since 1967, however, predominantly white medical schools have now begun to accept blacks and other minorities in their programs.

HEALTH NEEDS OF HOUSTON'S MINORITIES

Through interviews with a sample of black physicians, it was discovered that most felt that Houston needs a better delivery system of health care for minority communities. An upgraded health delivery system would necessarily require more physicians, -- particularly blacks. It is estimated that there are 6,000 physicians in the city; of this number, 70 or 1.2 percent are black. 168

Fifty (50) of the seventy black physicians practice in the Model

Cities designated neighborhoods. The city-wide proportionate rate of black physicians per service population is estimated at one per 4,500 persons.

Black families in Kashmere Gardens and Trinity Gardens, until recently, had to rely on the services of one pediatrician.

Other minority areas experience similar difficulty in receiving adequate forms of medical care. Many of the black physicians indicated that an increase in other medical personnel such as nurses, respiratory therapists, and medical technicians, at all levels, will assist in improving health conditions for the poor. Obtaining and servicing more mobile health units and ordinary clinics would also help.

COST

The cost of medical care hinders low income and middle class Americans alike, but the former suffers even more. As previously stated, an average hospital day, nationally costs

$70; in New York and Boston the cost is $110 and $103, respectively. In Houston, it was difficult to pinpoint a "single figure" average cost because prices vary according to the kind of service received. A survey'of hospital insurance agencies, however, showed semi-private rooms ranging from around $34 to $55; lower figures generally apply to the Harris County

Hospital District. As a whole, average costs per room (not including other services), range from a low cost of $33 to a 169

high cost of $42, depending on the hospital and the facilities available. Drugs and physician's fees were difficult to pinpoint from the data collected.

In 1971, it was reported that about 220 federal departments and agencies administered some form of health programs. It should be noted that the recent proposed cutbacks by the Nixon Adminis- tration will greatly reduce the health benefits provided by previous administrations. During the Johnson years, Congress authorized an estimated 51 statutes of health legislation that were to be administered by various authorities. There is some evidence to indicate that steps were not taken to provide the coordinated and comprehensive efforts necessary to insure maximum benifits to the general citizenry. Medicare and Medicaid, though well conceived, did not turn out to be the panacea for the health ills of the poor, the aged, and black populations.

In failing to provide for these elements through a comprehensive health delivery system, federal efforts tended to provide impetus to an increase in health cost. To be sure, blacks from urban and rural areas, and other minorities, such as Chicanos, poor whites, and. Indians, have had to cope daily with the reality of inadequate health care. 170

HOSPITAL CARE

The "separate- but - equal" doctrine which permeated the

whole of American life for many years insured the survival of

parallel racial institutions. These institutional paradigms

limited black participation in public and private hospitals

administered by the white sector. The larger white hospitals which admitted blacks required that they demonstrate an un-

questioned ability to pay in advance. The patients who were

admitted were housed in separate wings of hospitals. In many

rural areas of the South, this practice of de facto segregation

in hospitals still exists. Much of this segregation, however,

is due to the timidity of minority patients who continually

conform to older established customs.

Hospitals which evolved during earlier periods still serve

predominantly black populations. Homer G. Phillips in St. Louis;

George Hubbard in Nashville; Riverside General Hospital, Mercy,

Lockwood and St. Elizabeth hospitals in Houston; Provident

Hospital in Baltimore; Flint-Goodrich in New Orleans; and Freedmen's

Hospital in Washington, D. C. are a few of the black hospitals which have survived despite insufficient funding.

Black hospitals in Houston operate, for the most part, with

insufficient funding for staff, equipment, and on-going biomedical

research. Research on sickle cell anemia, a disease which affects 171

blacks more than other groups, has been largely carried on in white medical research units, according to a National Institute of

Mental Health official, because few black hospitals have funds to engage in large-scale and continuing medical research projects.

To be sure, the black communities of Houston and in the nation (as well as the hospitals which serve them) are encountering health care problems similar to those of the nation's middle classes and the poor. In the case of minorities, the problems are more acute. This is clearly reflected in several vital areas:

Nonwhite babies in the nation die at a rate nearly double that of white Americans. In Houston, the rate of infant deaths is higher for the black population than for the white population in all data for the decade, 1961-1971. Each group experienced a decrease in infant deaths; however, as shown in Table 84, black infants died at a rate of 36.62 per 1,000 live births in 1961; the white infant death rate was 22.33 for the same period. By 1971, the black infant death rate had decreased to 26.90 per 1,000 live births, while the white infant mortality rate had decreased to. 17.78 per 1,000 live births.

The chief cause of infant deaths is ill-defined diseases. The second cause of deaths is postnatal asphyxia. Table 85 gives an infant summary of deaths by race and sex during 1971 in Houston. More male whites die of infections at birth than blacks; more female black babies die of infections at birth than white female babies. On the whole more white babies die of congenital malformation circulatory system disease than black babies.

The maternal death rate for nonwhite American mothers is four times that of white American mothers. As a whole, American mothers die in childbirth at a rate higher than that of eleven (11) other countries. INFANT DEATHS BY RACE AND SEX Table 84 HOUSTON RESIDENCE 1961-1971 WHITE (Rate Per 1,000 Live Births) NEGRO TOTAL 1961YEAR Male 208 Female 164 Total 372 22.33 Rate Male 142 Female 133 Total 275 36.62 Rate Male 350 Female 297 Total 647 26.77 Rate 1965196419631962 193211195217 145147157154 338358349374 22.2621.7820.8422..17 141178144156 140101104120 242248318276 32.0941.0132.1736.11 389334339373 287246258277 580676597650 25.5327.9424.4126.52 196819671966 178183169 135117144 313286327 20.1921.2018.73 I 130124147 126 9587 225211273 32.9029.3637.21 293308330 230204270 538497600 24.0822.1326.36 197119701969 172181175 119141113 291322288 17.7818.9817.46 129131119 104102 75 206231223 26.9025.1630.17 294301312 221216217 522528511 20.9220.9921.40 173

Table 85

INFANT SUMMARY OF DEATH HOUSTON RESIDENCE 1971

WHITE NEGRO TOTAL SUMMARY CAUSE OF DEATH TOTAL Male Female Male Female Male Female

Septicaemia Pyaemia 1 1 1 Avitaminosis 1 1 1 Allergic Disorders Mental Deficiency 2 2 2 Vascular Lesions Non Meningoc Meningitis 5 1 1 1 6 2 8 Otitis Media Mastoiditis 1 1 1 Dis.Circulatory Sys, 1 1 1 Lobar Pneumonia

Bronchopneumonia 2 1 2 1 3 Primary Atyp,& Unspec,Pneu. 13 9 15 11 28 20 48 Chronic Bronchitis 1 1 1 All Other Resp,Diseases 1 1 4 5 1 6 Gastroenteritis Colitis 1 1 2 2 Cirrhosis of Liver 1 1 1 Other Dis.Digest Sys. 1 2 1 2 3 Dis,Genito Urinary Sys. 1 1 1 Other Diseases Skin Spina Bifida 3 3 3 3 6 Congen.Malform.Cir, Sys, 14 16 3 3 17 19 36 Other Congen.Malform: 13 8 7 8 20 16 36 Birth Injuries 8 10 14 5 22 15 37 Postnatal Asphyxia 32 19 26 21 58 40 98 Infections of Newborn 12 3 9 7 21 10 31 Haemolytic Dis.Newborn 2 3 2 2 5 7 Dis.Early Infancy 3 1 1 4 4 5 9 Ill Defined Diseases Inf. 52 41 39 33 91 74 165 Ill Defined Causes 2 2 2 Motor Vehicle Accidents 2 1 2 1 3 Accident Fire Explosion 1 1 2 2 Accident Drowning 1 1 1 All Other Accidents 3 1 3 2 6 3 9 Homicide 1 1 1

Total 172 119 129 102 301 221 522 DEATHS BY RACE AND SEX (Rate Per 1,000 Population) Table 86 HOUSTON RESIDENCE 1960-1971 YEAR WHITE NEGRO TOTAL 1960 2,742 Male Female 1,874 4,616Total 6.38Rate 1,009 Male Female 804 1,813Total 8.43Rate 3,751 Male Female 2,678 6,429Total 6.85Rate 1964196319621961 2,9373,0282,7192,612 2,0862,1541,9831,92 5 5,0915,1144,7024,537 6.396.536.216.16 1,1381,0901,012 961 885891929814 2,0291,9751,9411,775 8.488.498.588.06 4,1664,0273,7313,573 2,9773,0392,9122,739 7,1437,0666,6436,312 6.876.986.756.60 1968196719661965 3,3523,2283,0893,056 2,4182,2172,2992,160 5,7705,4455,3885,216 6.476.266.376.34 1,2631,2131,2071,136 1,014 892927950 2,2772,1052,1342,086 8.548.118.448.48 4,6154,4414,2964,192 3,1093,4323,2263,110 8,0477,5507,5227,302 6.646.696.846.83 197119701969 3,4763,496 2,6032,6172,501 6,0796,0935,997 6.526.656.55 1,3961,3941,439 1,1011,0221,049 2,4972,4162,488 7.759.107.63 4,8724,8704,935 3,7043,6393,550 8,5768,5098,485 6.836.946.90 175

Most deaths occur from heart disease than other illnesses. Tuberculosis took the life of less people in 1971 than any other cause in Houston, with cancer, strokes, and accidents following in that order.

Tables 88 and 89 give data on births by race and sex, illegitimacy by race and sex.

Included also in this section is information on hospitals in

Houston and on major concerns by blacks aboutspecific health experiments by established authorities which tend to support rumors on "planned genocide" and related items.

IMPROVEMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

In a report to the Surgeon General of Public Health Service, the Advisory Committee on Urban Health Affairs acknowledged that

"in today's world of tightly interlocking problems, virtually every agency's mission has relevancy to health." Public health

leadership, the report said, "has a clear and continuing respon-

sibility to mobilize effective action of health across the entire

range of humanactivity."3We accept this statement unquestioningly,

but unfortunately neither federal, public, nor private leadership has been able to effectively coordinate health services to insure the adequate delivery of services to all groups, especially the middle class, the aged, poor and black populations. The needs of these groups are multi-faceted in character. 176

Table 87

FREQUENCY OF SELECTED STATISTICS HOUSTON RESIDENCE 1971 (Total Population)

ONE PERSON DIES EVERY -

CAUSE OF DEATH TOTAL Hours Minutes Seconds

Heart Disease 3 4 56 2,842 Cancer 5 16 3 1,663 Stroke 8 59 4 975 Accidents 19 5 6 459 Diseases of Early Infancy 25 14 42 347

Homicides 28 10 1 311 Cirrhosis of Liver 43 21 58 202 Pneumonia 44 1 12 199 Suicides 49 46 21 176 Diabetes Mellitus 59 11 39 148 Congentl.Malformations 81 6 39 108 General Arteriosclerosis 81 52 9 107 Nephritis 125 8 34 70 Hypertension Without Heart Disease 194 40 34 45 Tuberculosis 230 31 34 38 All Other Causes 8 3 5 1,088

TOTAL DEATHS 1 1 17 8.576

TOTAL INFANT DEATHS 16 46 53 522

TOTAL BIRTHS 21 3 24,958

TOTAL ILLEGITIMATE 2 10 35 4,025

SETS OF TWINS 36 30 240 BIRTHS BY RACE Table 88 HOUSTON, TEXAS YEAR WHITE (Rate Per 1,000 Population) NEGRO TOTAL 1963 10,489 Male 10,090Female 20,579 Total 26.41 Rate 4,375 Male Female 4,172 8,547Total 36.72 Rate 14,864 Male 14,262Female 29,126 Total 28.78 Rate 1967196619651964 10,10210,512 9,9159,932 10,097 9,5959,6099,262 19,19420,60919,69719,524 22.6623.0723.3225.74 4,0864,1634,2254,370 4,2233,9243,9614,146 8,0108,1248,3718,593 30.8532.1434.0535.92 14,18814,07814,15714,882 13,51913,57013,40814,320 27,70727,64827,56529,202 28.0824.5425.1625.79 1971197019691968 12,45112,60611,77710,645 11,82211,81211,30410,131 24,27324,41823,08120,776 26.0226.6525.2123.28 4,8894,6804,0803,769 4,0884,6944,4563,802 9,5839,1368,1687,571 29.7328.8629.8728.40 17,34017,28615,85714,414 16,51616,26815,39213,933 33,85633,55431,24928,347 26.9827.2226.2824.46 ILLEGITIMATES BY RACE AND SEX (Rate. Per 1,000 Live Births) Table 89 HOUSTON RESIDENCE 1963-1971 YEAR Male Female WHITE Total Rate Male Female NEGRO Total Rate Male - Female TOTAL Total Rate 196519641963 437342279 377335304 814677583 41.1953.6234.81 1,014 836903 882842889 1,7451,903 227.82225.02246.89 1,2451,293 1,1771,193 2,4222,486 100.12101.66 196819671966 436424536 469398370 1,005 834794 64.8254.6351.48 1,032 984963 970908 2,0021,8711,718 255.01278.56 1,4681,3871,273 1,3681,2781,259 2,8362,6652,532 126.30117.09111.43 1971197'._s1969 562561521 563542516 1,1251,1031,037 68.7265.0262.88 1,4921,2711,057 1,4081,2731,0631,010 2,9002,5442,1201,994 337.72310.66286.80291.56 2,0541,8321,5781,520 1,9711,8151,5791,479 4,0253,6473,1572,999 161.27144.99132.18134.22 179

Interviews with physicians in Houston indicated the need for a decrease in medical costs. It was also suggested that more counseling and dietary instructions be given to minority residents.

This suggestion is directed toward lower class groups of all races rather than middle class persons. Studies have shown that many middle and upper middle class blacks are decidedly more well-fed than whites with comparable incomes, thereby destroying the myth that "all blacks are undernourished."

Other black physicians tended to believe that improvements in related conditions such as better housing and environmental conditions would aid in correcting health conditions for many minorities. Better housing conditions and less crowdedness would contribute to a decrease in the incidence of diseases caused by such conditions. Improvements in transportation facilities and outpatient services in clinics and hospitals were also suggested.

Specific improvements in some areas are being made in Houston.

A few are listed here.

The Health Department is presently acquiring or has already acquired a mobile unit financed under a $300,000 Federal Family Planning Grant.

2. The Health Department is trying to expand its immunization services through an increase in area clinics. For example, an immunization clinic has been opened in the Hufsmith area New Clinics are being considered in the Acres Hmes and Casa de Amigas areas. Ben Taub Hospital has acquired a clinic for children, with its own pharmacy, so that parents with ill children will not have to wait long hours to get medicine. 180

3. The Texas Board of Mental Health and Retardation has approved $229,000 for assistance to community mental health centers.

4. The City of Houston has acquired a city-owned ambulance service and plans for an emergency room link.

5. There have been improvements in Care Programs, resulting in a decrease in infant and maternal death rates among the poor.

6. The Gulf State Dental Association plans to establish a Dental Service Corporation to help poor people obtain federal funds for comprehensive dental work.

SOME MEDICALLY-RELATED CONCERNS BY THE BLACK POPULATION

Brain Surgery to Control Behavior

According to an article included in Ebony Magazine (February,

1973) the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) agreed to award a $500,000 grant to Dr. William Sweet, Chief of Neurosurgery at Massachusetts General Hospital, to determine if there is any connection between violent behavior and brain disease. More specifi- cally, he was asked to develop a way to identify and control persons who commit "senseless" violence, as well as those "who are constantly

in and out of jail." In conjunction with this study, the Justice

Department's Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA),

invested $108,930 in further brain research by two of Dr. Sweet's colleagues, Dr. Frank Ervin, a psychiatrist, and Dr. Vernon Mark,

Chief of Neurosurgery at Boston City Hospital. The Justice 181

Department ordered the grantees to "to determine the incidence of

brain disorders in a state penitentiary of men; to establish their

presence' in a civilian population; and to "improve, develop and

test the usefulness" of electrodes and brain surgery"for the detection of such disorders in Boston City Hospital."

Noted black psychologists, including Dr. Alvin Pouissant, associate professor of psychiatry at Harvard University Medical

School, have expressed deep concerns about the studies. Known case

studies have indicated that the subjects or targets are often blacks.

In describing the studies as racist, Pouissant adds rather bluntly,

"It assumes that black people are genetically damaged--that they are

so animal and so savage that whites have to carve their brains to make them into human beings."

In reference to these medical maneuvers, there is concern

because a large proportion of the prison population is black, and prisoners seem to be fair game for the psychosurgeon's knife.

Prison officials claim that these operations are performed only with voluntary consent, but critics of the program argue that there is no

such thing as "freedom of consent" in a penal institution. To be sure, there is reason to be alarmed about brain surgery to control behavior. 132

Sickle Cell Anemia

Sickle Cell Anemia is a disease which touches one out of every ten black men and women in the United States. In his message to congress, President Nixon pronounced sickle cell anemia "a targeted disease for concentrated research" and added that his administration would propose a two-fold increase from a previous $6 million to $12 million. It is felt that all Americans and blacks should support the local chapters for sickle cell anemia.

Syphillis: The Tuskegee Study

An experiment which began forty (40) years ago, called the

Tuskegee Study, culminated in 1972 when it was discovered that 400 black syphillitics used as subjects in the study were never treated for the disease. The project was a cooperative venture between the

Alabama State Health Agencies and the U. S. Public Health Services.

The tragic revelation of the experiment which began in 1932 led to a full scale investigation which caused the Congressional

Black Caucus to condemn the study as "a morally indefensible act."

Facts about the case indicated that the researchers denied medical treatment to the 400 blacks. These individuals gave their consent without fully understanding the consequences. Pressure is being applied for relief to survivors and offsprings of the victims. HEW officials made it clear that the federal government has no legal means to deliver health care to those who survived the experiment. 183

All experiments involving human guinea pigs for experimenta- tion should be carefully examined in order to prevent medical abuse against people in general, and blacks in particular. In the

Tuskegee Syphillis Study, there is evidence to suggest that this was not the case. Doctors testified before a government-appointed committee that there is no evidence that participants in the con- troversial Federal Syphillis Study conducted by the U. S. Public

Health Service, beginning in 1932, ever gave their informed consent to take part. One of the doctors indicated that he believed the participants had been subjected to undue coercion to cooperate.

Four hundred and thirty (430) men, all blacks, were never given treatment for the disease because doctors wanted to study what damage untreated syphillis does to the human body. At least 28, and possibly as many as 107, of the men died as a direct result of untreated syphillis. The refusal of treatment was deliberate to the point of regulation and control by participating nurses in the study.

A University of Texas research team deprived 17 infants of a food substance essential for their development in an experiment conducted in 1956-57. The infants were deprived, for 13 weeks, of a fatty substance, linoleic acid, even though it was known that denial of the substance caused possible damage to the brain or spinal cord in animals. The study was conducted by the County Hospital in

Galveston, and its results published in 1959. In this medical 184

experiment, twelve of the children were black and five were white.

Information concerning the experiment was contained in an article in the Boston Globe and carried through UPI in the Houston Chronicle,

March 24, 1973.

The results of the hearing on medical abuse, with particular reference to the Tuskegee experiment, led to recommendations of the special citizens' panel. In its drafted report, made public March 1, the panel added its voice to the congressional viewpoint and called for the federal government to set up a permanent human experimenta- tion investigation board to curb future abuses of human subjects in medical researches.

The Need For More Black Dentists

There exists a dire need to increase the number of qualified black dentists in Houston and other parts of the country. Black dentists make up two and one half (2g0 percent of the total number of dentists in this country. In Houston, there are 36 members of the

Charles A. George Dental Association, a black organization in the city. Of this total, one member practices dentistry in Galveston and two are retired. Only thirty-two black dentists in Houston are active in the organization and provide services to predominately black clients. The bulkof the 316,000 blacks in the city patron- ize these dentists. 185

Blacks are highly visible and over-represented at the bottom of the professional ladders in both dental and medical fields.

For instance, registered nurses comprise seven percent of the total number of nurses in the nation; practical nurses, 15 percent, but the number of black nurse's aides is more than 50 percent of the total. The shortage of blacks at the top of the profession was explained in part by Dr. James L. Curtis of Cornell Medical

College in "The Economics of Health Care," published by Black

Enterprise (June, 1972). "The shortage is due largely to the fact that for some time, medical schools in the country were admitting no more than token numbers ofblacks,"4says Dr. Curtis.

Black Employment Participation in Dental Trades

A survey was conducted during 1970 for the purpose of determining the nature of the job market for black Americans in the dental trades industry. The study, focusing on the social and economic aspects of the industry, sought to determine attitudes of executives toward hiring and promoting employees in general and black employees in particular. This very timely study explored central issues relating to employment; the demands for blacks in dental trade associations and laboratories; and the efforts being made by these insititutions to incorporate occupational experiences of blacks into their companies. 186

Preliminary findings of the study indicate that black employment in the dental trades is very low, with the greater proportion

of those employed working in non-supervisory positions. Some very

encouraging trends were found to be hidden in the aggregate data obtained on employment policies and qualifications. Despite the

less prominent indication of promotion by some companies, exclu-

sively from within, the employment of blacks in upper level occupa-

tional categories appears to be somewhat promising. More complete findings of the survey will be included in A Profile of the Negro

in American Dentistry. The volume was compiled by Dr. Foster Kidd of Dallas, Texas, in collaboration with several other dentists throughout the country, and it is scheduled for publication by the

Howard University Press later this year. Included in the appendice is a directory of hospitals for Houston and Harris county 1973, indicating where volunteers are needed. 187

FOOTNOTES

1"The Economics of Health Care," Black Enterprise, June, 1972, pp. 17-20.

2Ibid.,p. 18.

3U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, "Securing Health in Our Urban Future," Washington, D.C.: Public Health Service Publication No. 1581, December, 1965, p. CHAPTER 5

POLITICS AND THE MINORITY VOTER

Prior to the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, any attempt at analyzing the extent of black voter participation in any area of American politics involved a journey into an unhappy phase of American constitutional and political morality. Recent developments in the South and the nation, however, suggest that there is increasing political activity among blacks in local, state, and national elections. This emerging political strength relates to the removal of certain restrictions on voter registration in the South. History affords us ample evidence concerning the exclusion of blacks from the political scene. Despite previous denials of the right to vote, there is a growing awareness on the part of blacks of the necessity to adjust to certain rules and norms of the political world.

This trend toward political socialization includes, but is not confined to, issues vital to full citizenship. There is evidence that black voters are beginning to concentrate on stronger currents in the political stream -- issues and answers which merit concern of the general public. This shift from the single issue of civil rights to an all-inclusive concern for broader issues marks a turning point in the political aspirations of black Americans.

The advent of single member district legislation made it possible for some blacks to be elected to city, state, and national offices. The

188 189

districts from which many blacks seek election are predominantly black

because of segregation in housing. From such areas in Houston, and other

cities, it is relatively easy for black and other minority group members

to get elected to public office. However, in districts which cut across

racial lines, there is some difficulty experienced by the minority group

candidates. In cases where the office-seeker makes an appeal for broad

support, it is possible for a candidate to win office only if he can con-

vince voters that his concern on issues is not limited to racial matters.

Even where this normally occurs, there is great difficulty in getting elected, particularly if he is opposed by white candidates.

Four black candidates from Harris County won seats to the state

legislature with only token general election opposition. The victories

increased minority representation in the county's delegation by 50 percent.

Two of the newly elected legislators were unopposed in the November election

of 1972. Representative Senfronia Thompson of District 89 and Mickey Leland

frofil District 88 were certain of their victories by virtue of no opposition

in the general election.

Most of the predominantly black districts correspond, in many ways,

to census tract boundaries and cut across predominantly black communities.

Districts 85,86, and 87 are considered to be minority areas. Representative

Craig A. Washington won election in District 86; Anthony Hall won for

District 85; and Mexican - American. Representative Ben T. Reyes won in District

87. Reyes, like Thompson and Leland, was unopposed in his District.

Outside of the districts which served the minority communities, there is

no representation by minority group members in preoominantly white 190

districts. It is safe to assume that only in cases where minority group members defeat others of their race can they be expected to get elected to office under the present system. For many years, whites represented districts (through the multi-member system) which had substantial black and brown populations. However, when the situation is reversed, white populations will not support black candidates in their districts nor will they vote for them if one uses previous election statistics as a basis for this fact.

Harris County's ethnic vote is concentrated in a strip of five legislative districts, extending from the South Loop to the extreme northeast corner of Houston. Only in the case of Reyes is there a mixed racial district and this one has a 47 percent Mexican-

American population and about 30 percent black with the balance between whites and others. Leland's district consists of an almost sol- idly black area lying northeast of downtown Houston, with the Kash- mere Gardens subdivision at its center. Washington's District 86 lies east of Main Street to Braes Bayou and the area includes Texas

Southern University and the University of Houston. In the November

1972 General Election, Washington was opposed by a 21 year-old

University of Houston student. The district represented by Mrs.

Senfronia Thompson lies in northeast Houston. The area was 51 percent black in 1970, but there is evidence that this area is in transition and the black majority will continue to increase by virtue of white succession.

Black representation in the legislature marks a new stream in Texas

politics. The strong ties linking many minority group members together 191

by the psychological bond of race have promoted not only increased political representation, but a greater degree of solidarity among this segment of the electorate. This togetherness embraces a tenuous unity supported by a consciousness of kind and common needs, which cannot be measured in terms of degrees of leadership. Instead, one must view black representation in state government as one step toward obtaining a greater voice in the affairs which directly affect minority communities.

There is also some evidence that minority group members are becoming more active in politics because other measures -- demonstrations, boycotts, etc. have failed. There is a widening of interest in public issues also.

In Houston, the recent Bond Election received a wide spectrum of support from various levels of the society. In an article carried in the Houston

Post (February 25, 1973), it was reported that "in almost every ethnic and economic group, voters who turned out...strongly supported the city's

$145 million bond proposal..." Voters in predominantly black precincts were more skeptical about the bond proposals than those from other areas.

Black voters were concerned with particular item allocations. This is not uncommon when one considers that black areas in the city have been the most neglected. The middle class black voter is cognizant of the need to have a thorough understanding of the use to which these funds will be put. As a result, several individual proposals in the bond election won more support from the black community than others. Precincts with predominantly Mexican-American voters and the low income white precincts gave less support than the general voting public. Even where support was average, 60 to 65 percent of those voting approved the 192

proposals. Middle income and upper income whites demonstrated greater

support through voting than the less affluent whites. Support at these

levels approximated about 80 percent approval.

In the past bond election, minority group voters showed a concern for issues which affected the general population. This is essential

if one considers the past political activity by these groups. In the

past, black participation in bond elections was relatively low. We predict that there will be even greater political activity in Houston among minority segments, particularly in elections on education, mayoral can didates ;and county offices. Black politics throughout the country is acquiring a great deal of political sophistication. Campaign organizations, strategies, techniques, and voter registration are being developed by civic and political groups for use by potential black office holders.

On the national scene, former state senator Barbara Jordan of Houston won election to the United States House of Representatives. She became the first black woman from the South to achieve such a distinction.

Miss Jordan was among several black newcomers to serve at the national level. Andrew Young of Atlanta, Georgia, became the first black from the deep South to be elected to the House since 1901. Congresswoman Barbara

Jordan joined Miss Yvonne Brathwaite in Washington as a member of Congress.

In other state and local elections blacks were also winning election to key offices. In Arkansas, Illinois (Bloomington), Minnesota, Oregon, and Alabama blacks made some political gains during the November 1972 general election. Data on blacks in local political office and statistics on voter turnout and voter registration for minority groups in Houston have been included in this report. (See Appendices) 193

In the Presidential Election of 1972, black voters gave more

support to President Richard Nixon than in previous years. The

turnout increased from about 6 percent to about 15 percent. In

black ghettos, however, Senator George McGovern won 86 percent to

14 percent for Nixon.

Changing conditions over the last several years have somewhat modified civil rights emphases, and persistent integrative efforts

are being viewed by the average, less-militant black, in Houston and the nation, as part of a political world which he must discover

and utilize. Complete political socialization is the goal of the middle and upper middle class black, young adults and youthful

individuals. The gradual learning of norms, attitudes, and behavior

of the on-going political system will become the functional equiva-

lent of non-violent protest marches. Two conditions may be responsible

for the functioning, induction, and assimilation of blacks into the

political culture of the nation. One condition relates to the

newly-acquired suffrage brought on by the removal of restrictions

on voter registration. The other relates to prior isolation from

the majority group. Segregation was long the basis for the

belongingness, status, and role attribution of minority group members;

it Oas also the foundation for attendant matters of loyalty,

privilege, and responsibility. In such caste status, the scheme

of political readiness developed within the framework of a common

denominator of needs and expectations in the various phases of his 194

living. Despite progress in civil rights, discrimination still exists in areas of education and employment. With the gradual dinapoearance of non-violent protests, minority groups out of necessity and the search for a new strategy -- had to embrace a new means to achieve the ends of equality. This is more clearly

illustrated in mayoral races, such as the ones in Prichard,

Alabama, and Oakland, California. In each of these cities, young blacks sought political office. In Oakland, Black Panther Bobby

Seale forced his opponent into a runoff in April, 1973.

The second condition stems from the psychological damage which is the result of previous political containment. Black voters will continue to pursue issues pertaining to equality.

Candidates seeking black support will have to write in their platforms issues which touch on the general welfare of the group as a whole. To he sure, there are times when the black voter wants to escape the tyranny of his own type by using the concept

"human rights", instead of "civil rights." His mental organizational conformity is characteristic of a people struggling to make an

"already possessed" patriotic dream a reality. If any candidate prepares a suitable platform, which includes benefits for all people but most certainly minority groups, he can capture the black vote irrespective of party affiliation. The traditional democratic voter strength in Texas and the nation is crumbling to some degree.

This gradual shift is concomitant with the emergence of complete 195

political socializationamong blacks. Another converging trend

toward greater political awareness has been the election of

hlacks to local, state and national offices. The influence of

these political lines of development will give greater impetus

to civic and community participation among minoritygroup voters

in the years ahead.

Statistics on the civic and community participation of minority groups and other representativesare included for the years, 1971-1973, in Tables 90 through 94. 196

Table 90 HARRIS COUNTY DELEGATION IN THE TEXAS LEGISLATURE

Senate

Liberal Democrat (Incumbent) Chet Brooks District 11 Liberal Democrat (Incumbent) James P. (Jim) Wallace District 6 Liberal Democrat Bob Gammage District 7 Liberal Democrat A. R.(Babe) Schwartz District 17 Democrat Jack Ogg District 15 Right Wing Republican Walter H. Mengden, Jr. District 13

House of Representatives

Liberal Democrat Joe Allen District 78 Liberal Democrat Jim Clark District 99 Liberal Democrat Woody Denson District 81 Liberal Democrat Anthony Hall District 85 Liberal Democrat Mickey Leland District 88 Liberal Democrat R. C.(Nick) Nichols District 98 Liberal Democrat Joe Pentony District 80 Liberal Democrat Ben T. Reyes District 87 Liberal Democrat Senfronia Thompson District 89 Liberal Democrat Craig A. Washington District 86 Liberal Democrat Lindon Williams District 96 Moderate Democrat R.E. (Gene) Green District 95 Moderate Democrat Hawkins Menefee District 84 Conservative Democrat John Whitmore District 82 Democrat Gene Jones District 97 Democrat Ron Waters District 79 Democrat Ed R. Watson District 17 Right Wing Republican William J.(Bill) Blythe District 91 Republican Ray Bailey District 90 Republican Ray Barnhardt District 100 Republican Sid Bowers District 92 Republican Milton E. Fox District 93 Republican Don Henderson District 94 Republican Larry A. Vick District 83 197

-Table .91 HARRIS COUNTY HOUSE MEMBERS COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS

Name and City Committee Assignment

Joe Allen Chairman, House administration; Baytown revenue and taxation

Kay Bailey Elections, intergovernmental affairs; Houston revenue and taxation

Ray Barnhardt Education, elections, insurance Pasadena

W. J. (Bill) Blythe, Jr. Vice-chairman insurance; calendars, Houston natural resources

Sid Bowers Business and industry, labor, Houston environmental affairs

Jim Clark Chairman, labor; education Pasadena

Woody Denson Criminal jurisprudence, environmental Houston affairs, judiciary

Milton E. Fox Intergovernmental relations, natural Houston resources, transportation

Raymond E. (Gene) Green, Insurance, labor, state affairs Houston

Anthony Hall Appropriations, intergovernmental Houston affairs, labor

Don Henderson Business and industry, judiciary, Houston reapportionment

Gene Jones Environmental affairs, judiciary, Houston state affairs

Mickey Leland Human resources, labor and state Houston affairs

Hawkins Meneffee Appropriations, calendars, rules Houston

R. C. (Nick) Nichols Elections, insurance, labor Houston

Joe Pentony Education, reapportionment Houston 198

Table 91 HARRIS COUNTY HOUSE MEMBERS COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS (Cont.)

Name and City Committee Assignment

Ben T. Reyes Human resources, labor, Houston reapportionment

Senfronia Thompson Business and industry, education, Houston labor

Larry A. Vick Insurance, judiciary, transportation Houston

Craig A. Washington Criminal jurisprudence, Houston judiciary, rules

Ron Waters Criminal jurisprudence, environmental Houston affairs, labor

Ed R. Watson Environmental affairs, labor, Deer Park natural resources

John S. Whitmire Appropriations, human resources, Houston labor

Lindon Williams Chairman, business and industry; Houston revenue and taxation 199

Table 92 BOND ELECTION - Houston, Texas* February, 1973

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSITION Property Non-Prop Property Non-Prop For For Against Against

Proposition 1 - Street andBridge 50m 49217 46u5 12484 33 projects most to convert old, narrow streets to modern four lane divided streets. Included 9 bridges and grade separate projects.

Proposition 2 - Sanitary Sewer 50m 49172 4597 12500 669 39 specific projects. Plus construction of four treatment plants and expansion of another.

Proposition 3 - Public Library 4m 46942 4474 13649 752 Construction of five library branches. Expansion of another and renovation of present central library.

Proposition 4 - Storm Sewage and Drainage 17m 48952 4567 11983 690 Si xteen specific projects (not connected with paving) throughout the city.

Proposition 5 - Law Enforcement and Police De artment 5m 49126 4357 11680 877 New po ice academy, 500 car parking garage at central police station. Mini service centers at substation and helicopter hanger.

Proposition 6 - Fire Department 6m 48865 4529 11838 714 Relocation of 9 fire stations, the reconstruction of two considered outdated, build 3 new stations and buy sites for 7 future stations. 200

BOND ELECTION CONT' D. Table 92

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSITION Property Non-Prop Property Non-Prop For For AgainstAgainst proposition 7- Pub is Heal th Bonds 3m 46202 4489 12812 747 Construction of 2 comprehensive health centers for Northwest and Southeast Houston expansion and rennovati on of Bluer-1 cige and North Si de

Centers .

Proposition 8 - Parks and Recreation 5m 46591 4523 13454 727 4 swimming pools, 15 lighted

fields, 10 tennis courts, 5 park shelters, more hi ke and bike trails and improvements at existing parks.

Proposition 9 - Traffic and Safety Control Bonds 3m 48359 4515 12218 724 Installing modern traffic signals, hopeful ly at 100 intersections. Conversion to modern marked aluminum traffic signs and convert to reflectori zed ceramic pave- ment markers on al 1major thoroughfares.

Proposition 10 - Solid Waste Management 479 70 4508 12679 720 Garbage collection truck pool in Southeast part of Houston to cut down on driving time to pools and maintenance centers

* Houston Post, February 25, 1973. 201

Table 93

COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS OF VETERAN AND FRESHMEN BLACK CONGRESSMEN: ALL DEMOCRATS

COMMITTEE REPRESENTATIVE

Appropriations Rep. Louis Stokes, Ohio

Armed Services Rep. Ronald V. Dellums, California

Banking and Currency Rep. Parren J. Mitchell, Maryland Rep. Walter E. Fauntroy, D. C. Rep. Andrew Young, Georgia

District of Columbia Rep. Charles C. Diggs, Jr., Michigan Rep. Ronald V. Dellums, California Rep. Walter E. Fauntroy, D. C. Rep. Shirley Chisholm, New York

Foreign Affairs Rep. Charles C. Diggs, Jr., Michigan Rep. Robert Nix, Pennsylvania

Government Operations Rep. John Conyers, Michigan

House Administration Rep. Augustus Hawkins, California

Interior Rep. Yvonne B. Burke, California

Commerce Rep. Ralph H. Metcalfe, Illinois

Judiciary Rep. John Conyers, Michigan Rep. Charles Rangel, New York Rep. Barbara Jordan, Texas

Merchant Marine Rep. Ralph H. Metcalfe, Illinois

Post Office and Civil Service Rep. Robert Nix, Pennsylvania Rep. William Clay, Missouri

Public Works Rep. Yvonne B. Burke, California

Science Rep. Charles Rangel, New York

Black congressmen now have from one to four members on every House standing committee, except:

Veterans Ways and Means (No vacancies) Rules Agriculture Standards of Official Conduct VOTER ANALYSIS IN PRESIDENT'S RACE Table 94 Youth AREA QUALIFIED 31,384 20,605-65.6% VOTED 6,839-33.7%MC GOVERN 13,382-65.9% NIXON 64-0.3%JENNESS BlackWhite Labor 20,84710,104 12,606-60.4%6,769-66.9% 11,621-95.5%1,972-29.8% 4,621-70.0% 510-04.1% 26-0.2% 7-0.1% MiddleMexican-American Income White 22,42613,779 16,080-71.7%6,909-50.1% 2,972-18.7%4,621-69.2% 12,874-81.1%2,024-30.3% 14-0.0%24-0.3% LowAffluent Income White White 12,31919,404 11,910-61.3%7,574-61.4% 3,064-41.3%2,949-25.2% 4,322-58.3%8,707-74.5% 15-0.2%22-0.1% BaytownPasadena-Deer Park 43,94118,011 30,427-69.2%11,805-65.5% 3,639-31.5%. 21,388-71.7%7,816-67.7% 102-0.3% 85-0.7% Jac City-Galena Park 21,206 8,357 15,419-72.7%5,115-61.2% 4,028-26.7%2,587-51.9%8,317-27.9% 11,027-73.1%2,379-47.7% 23-0.1%18-0.3% WestsideBellaire-Wup-SouthsideNasa Area Villages 12,63510,694 9,910-78.4%7,409-70.0% 1,588-16.1%1,176-15.9% 6,203-83.9%8,214-83.7% 10-0.1% 9-0.0% RuralSouth Houston 7,2124,791 5,009-69.4%2,777-57.9% 1,044-21.3%1,048-38.9% 3,818-78.1%1,642-60.9% 25-0.5% 4-0.1% VOTER ANALYSIS IN U.S. SENATE RACE Table 94 (Cont.) Youth AREA )UALIFIED 31,384 20,605-65.6% VOTED SANDERS TOWER 143-0.7%LEONARD 198-0.9%AMAYA BlackWhite Labor 20,84710,104 12,606-60.4%6,769-66.9% 3,106-47.1%8,875-44.1% 10,877-54.1%3,471-51.8% 421-03.6% 60-0.5%23-0.3% 66-0.5%38-0.5% MiddleMexican-American Income White 22,42613,779 16,080-71.7%6,909-50.1% 11,040-95.2%4,264-68.2% 1,239-19.8% 45-0.2%49-0.7% 697-11.1% 59-0.3% LowAffluent Income White White 23,31919,404 11,910-61.3%7,574-61.4% 4,010-55.5%3,840-33.1%4,816-30.5% 10,856-68.8%3,039-42.1%7,423-64.1% 39-0.5%27-0.2% 130-1.8%278-2.4% Pasadena-DeerBaytown Park 43,94118,011 30,427-69.2%11,805-65.5% 13,842-46.8%5,644-49.6% 15,425-52.25,582-49.1% 108-0.3% 53-0.4% 159-0.5%81-0.7% Jac City-Galena Park 21,206 8,357 15,419-72.7%5,115-61.2% 5,530-36.8%3,174-65.9% 9,354-62.2%1,593-33.1% 41-0.2%18-0.3% 102-0.6%26-0.5% WestsideNasaBellaire-Wup-Southside Area Villages 12,63510,694 9,910-78.4%7,490-70.7% 2,079-28.2%3,069-31.5% 6,588-67.7%5,246-71.2% 27-0.2%16-0.2% . 45-0.4%23-0.3% RuralSouth Houston 7,2094,791 5,009-69.4%2,777-57.9% 1,870-39.1%1,446-54.9% 2,864-60.0%1,140-43.2% 29-0.6%6-0.2% 41-1.5% 9-0.1% VOTER ANALYSIS IN GOVERNOR'S RACE Table 94 (Cont.) AREA QUALIFIED VOTED GROVER BRISCOE LEONARD MUNIZ WhiteYouth Labor 31,38410,104 20,605-65.6%6,769-66.9% 11,816-59.4%3,857-58.5% 2,470-37.5%6,368-32.0% 573-2.8%87-1.3%98-0.8% 1,124-5.6% 236-2.0%168-2.5% Mexican-AmericanBlack 13,77920,847 12,606-60.4%6,908-50.1% 1,375-21.5% 644-05.5% 10,681-91.6%3,739-24.0%3,581-56.1% 165-1.0%93-1.4% 1,331-20.8% 380-2.4% MiddleAffluent Income White White 22,42619,404 16,080-71.7%11,910-61.3% 11,275-72.4%7,253-62.9%3,543-47.5% 3,528-47.3%3,554-30.8% 109-0.9% 77-1.0% 607-5.2%302-4.0% BaytownLow Income White 18,01112,319 30,427-69.2%11,805-65.5%7,874-63.9% 17,083-57.5%5,901-52.0% 11,850-39.9%5,165-45.5% 221-0.7%82-0.7% 475-1.6%188-1.6% JacPasadena-Deer City-Galena Park.Park 43,94121,206 8,357 15,419-72.7%5,115-61.2% 9,887-66.0%1,785-36.6% 4,389-29.3%2,968-61.0% 225-1.5% 33-0.6% 464-3.1% 78-1.6% NasaWestsideBellaire-Wup-Southside Area Villages 12,63510,694 9,910-78.4%7,490-70.0% 7,476-77.1%5,223-71.1% 1,886-19.4%1,908-26.0% 125-1.2%78-1.0% 128-1.7%208-2.1% RuralSouth Houston 7,2094,791 5,009-69.4%2,777-57.9% 2,896-60.3%1,292-48.5% 1,860-38.7%1,231-46.2% 29-0.6%17-0.6% 121-4.5% 15-0.3% CHAPTER 6

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND THE MINORITY COMMUNITY

During the last several decades two theoretical trends have influenced the study of crime and the administration of justice. One such trend is directly related to the theory of bureaucratic organizations, particularly the structural pressures which influence the behavior of individuals charged with the responsibility of administering justice and enforcing legislation. The theory of bureaucracy, developed by Max Weber and extended by such scholars as Blau and

Selznick, provides a difficult orientation to an understanding of the

1 workings of the Criminal Justice System. Sociological interests deviate, in some way, from views held by legal scholars. To the former, the organismic approach to an understanding of police behavior and its influence on the criminal justice system occupies prominence in understanding the phenomenon of crime. The importance of police behavior from a social, as well as a legal point of view, is underscored in an article found in Crisis in American Institutions. 2

Another trend which has occupied considerable attention during the last half of the twentieth century was the developing theory of social deviance, as reflected in the writings of Becker, Goffman,

3 and others. The importance of defining the deviant act is considered central in determining whether or not an individual is regarded as a

205 206

criminal or placed in a peculiar stigmatized category. McNamara

and Niederhoffer, in studying the police as a group, found that

"police represent the attitudes of the social groups from which

they are drawn." It is assumed from this assertion that the

racial factor is also reflected in such attitudes.

A comprehensive study of the racial factor in the length

of prison sentences was completed by Bullock in 1961. Having

studied black criminality for many years, the author sought to

examine the differential treatment by juries in the assessment

of punishment through his study of 3,644 inmates in a Texas state

prison. The conclusions drawn in this work support the theory

of social deviance and the influence of attitudes and behavior

on the definition of the deviant act by police. Bullock concludes

his excellent study with this theoretical suggestion: "Those who enforce the law conform to the norms of their local society

concerning racial prejudice, thus denying equality before the

law. That criminal statistics reflect social customs, values,

and prejudices appears to bc fu-ther validated."4 A broader

and more subtle suggestion implied through his findings is that

any criminality attributed to the black community -- statistical

or analytical -- should be viewed within the framework of the

aforementioned theoretical perspectives. 207

RACE AND CRIME

The relative criminality of blacks, as opposed to whites in terms of raw statistical representation, has not been adequately explained. Local and national statistics on crime do not give an accurate picture of the proportionate number of crimes committed by the two groups, or the number of arrests actually made. For instance, figures shown in the Uniform

Crime Reports, published by the FBI, are -- for the most part-- incomplete. "The lack of a uniform methodology in record keeping is responsible for a segment of the problem" relating to disproportionate representation of blacks in statistics on crime. 5

In a discussion of race and crime, The Negro, Yearbook

(1966) points to particular aspects of the problem.

As long as such differences in the character and efficiency of the police; differences in community attitudes; differences in the caliber of prosecution, in the judicial interpretation of the courts, and differences in the bias of judges obtained; the value of comparative statistics on this subject will be debatable.

It should be noted that the actual operation of the system of criminal justice is broader than administrative processes which enhance the bureaucratic organization. Instead, crime must be viewed not only as a type of social protest, but also as a symbol of a breakdown in traditional values social as well as technological. The extremes from which criminals 208

are drawn: black and white; rich and poor; white collar and blue collar, are indicative of unrest and dissatisfaction in society which is not necessarily racial or economic. Criminal activity, irrespective of race or class, may be more symptomatic of differential value systems and institutional inadequacies. Additionally, any interpretation of the true incidence of crime must take into account the nature of the offense, the conviction process, and the accurate assessment of the basis of legal representation.

It is the purpose of this chapter to present statistics on crime for Houston, with some data for the nation as a whole.

We do this with full knowledge that any conclusions drawn from such data are dependent upon the adequacy of the labeling process and other operational characteristics inherent in the bureaucratic structures of police departments and law enforcement agencies.

The basis of the operational character of the criminal justice system includes the determination of criminal conduct, discretion within the system, plea bargaining, convictions, acquittals, charge reductions, and/or accommodations.

It should be noted that criminal statistics for Houston were difficult to obtain. The Annual Reports of the Police

Department in Houston contain limited data by race. Some comparative data were taken from the Uniform Crime Reports published by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. 209

STATISTICS ON CRIME

The data on crime include a classification of offenses

by age, race, and sex for persons under 18 years of age and

for those over 18 years of age. Table 95 shows a distribution

of persons arrested in Houston in 1970 under the age of 18 years.

As the data indicate, white persons falling within this age

group predominated such categories as auto theft (69%);

arson (74%); vandalism and fraud (70% and 71%, respectively);

driving under the influence of alcohol (75%). Drug addiction,

marijuana, and other dangerous non-narcotics were offenses

which ranged from 85 percent to 90 percent.

Blacks in Houston under 18 years of age, are arrested for

the more serious offenses, and from the percentage and frequency

distribution, as shown in Tables 95 through 98, they are

disproportionately represented in the more serious criminal

offenses. Blacks make up about 25 percent of the population cf Houston , but they were arrested more often than whites for

offenses such as murder and nonnegligent manslaughterforcible

rape, robbery, aggravated assault, possession of weapons, and

gambling. In terms of all offenses, for those under 18 years

of age, whites were arrested in 62 percent of the cases; blacks were arrested in 38 percent of the cases. Blacks, under 18,

were arrested for 85 percent of all offenses involving forcible

rape; 86 percent of all offenses involving gambling; 74 percent 210

TABLE 95 RACE OF PERSONS ARRESTED UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE

RACE ALL OTHER Classification of Offenses Total White % 81 ack % Oriental % Indian etc.

Murder & nonnegl i gent Manslaughter 15 7 47 8 53 Murder by negligence 6 4 67 2 33 Forcible rape 33 5 15 28 85 Robbery 213 55 26 158 74 Aggravated assault 59 23 39 36 61 Burglary - Breaking or entering 1450 827 57 623 43

Larceny - Theft ( Except auto theft). 3625 1904 53 1721 47 Auto theft 818 566 69 252 31 Other assaults 552 245 44 307 56 Arson 75 55 74 20 26 Forgery & counterfeiting 55 35 64 20 36 Fraud 181 129 71 52 29 Embezzlement 0 0 0 0 0 Stolen Property: Buying, receiving, possessing 3 2 67 1 33 Vandalism 627 437 70 190 30 Weapons : Carrying, possessing, etc. 167 93 56 74 441- Prostitution and commercialized vi ce. 42 21 50 21 50 Sex offenses (Except forcible rape & prostitution) 49 27 55 22 45 Opium or cocai ne & thei r derivatives (morphine, heroin, codeine) a 12 12 100 0 0 Mari juana b 420 380 90 40 10 Synthetic narcotics - manufactured narcotics which can cause true drug

addiction( Demerol, Meth adones c. 0 0 0 0 0 Other dangerous non - narcotic drugs (Barbiturates, Benzedrine) d. 89 76 85 13 15 Narcoti c Drug Laws - Total 521 468 90 53 10 Garbl i ng - Total 81 12 14 75 86 Bookmaking (Hors e & s port book ) 0 0 0 0 0 Numbers & Lottery 0 0 0 0 0 All other gambling 87 12 14 75 86 Offenses against family and chi 1 dren 0 0 0 0 0 Driving under the influence 12 9 75 3 25 Liquor Laws 725 629 87 96 13 Drunkenness 443 314 70 129 Disorderly conduct 760 451 70 309 30 Vagrancy 1032 758 73 273 26 1 All other offens es( Except traffic).., 781 494 63 286 36 1 Sus pi ci on 1903 1283 67 620 33 Curfew & loitering law violations 0 0 0 0 0 Pun- aways 139 120 87 19 13 TOTAL 14373 8973 62 5398 38 211

TABLE 96 SEX OF PERSONS ARRESTED UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE

Classification of Offenses Total Male % Female

Murder & nonnegl i gent Mans 1 aughter 15 13 87 2 13 01 Mans laughter by negligence 6 5 ,.., 1 17 Forcible rape 33 33 100 0 Robbery 213 203 95 10 5 Aggravated assault 59 48 81 11 19 Burglary - Breaking or entering 1450 1330 92 120 8 Larceny - Theft ( Except auto theft) 3625 2447 68 1178 32 Au to theft 818 784 96 34 4 Other assaults 552 422 76 130 24 Arson 75 70 93 5 7 Forgery and counterfeiting 55 40 73 15 27 Fraud 181 154 85 27 15 Embezzlement 0 0 ...... 0 - -- Stolen Property: Buying, receiving,

possessing 3 2 67 1 33 Vandalism 627 587 94 40 6 Weapons: Carrying, possessing, etc 167 152 91 15 9 Prostitution & commerci al i zed vi ce 42 13 31 29 69 Sex offenses (Except forcible rape &

prostitution) 49 48 98 1 2 Narcotic Drug Laws - Total 521 412 79 109 21 Opium or cocaine & their derivatives (morphine, heroin, codeine) a. 12 6 50 6 50 Mari juana b. 420 346 82 74 18 Synthetic narcotics - manufactured narcotics which can cause true drug

addiction( Demerol, Methadones ) c. 0 0 0 --- Other dangerous non-narcoti c drugs

Barbiturates, Benzedrine d. 89 GO 67 29 33 Gambling - Total 87 86 99 1 1 Bookmaking (Horse & sport book ) a. 0 0 - -- 0 Numbers & Lottery b. 0 0 - -- 0

Al 1other gambling c. 87 86 99 1 1 Offenses against family & chi 1 dren.... 0 0 --- 0

Driving under the influence 12 11 92 1 8 Liquor Laws 725 609 84 116 16 , Drunkenness 443 415 94 28 0 Disorderly conduct 760 633 83 127 17 Vagrancy 1032 840 81 192 19 All other offenses (Except traffic).., 781 704 90 77 10 Sus pi ci on 1903 1552 82 351 16 Curfew & Loitering Law Violations 0 0 - -- 0 --- Run- aways 139 76 55 63 45 TOTAL 14373 212

TABLE 97 RACE OF PERSONS ARRESTED 18 YEARS OF AGE AND OVER

Classification of Offenses Total White Black % Oriental % Indian, etc.

Murder & nonnegligent Manslaughter 180 67 37 113 63 Murder by negligence 25 13 52 12 48

Forcible rape 136 56 41 79 58 1 1 Robbery 630 189 30 441 70 Aggravated assault 413 129 32 284 68 Burglary - Breaking or entering 1328 682 51 646 49 Larceny - Theft (Except auto theft) 3884 1997 1886 Auto Theft 623 333 53 290 47 Other assaults 2049 1185 58 864 42 Arson 60 32 53 28 47 Forgery & conterfeiting 481 231 48 250 52 Fraud 519 332 64 187 36 Embezzlement 16 13 82 3 18 Stolen Property: Buying, receiving, 35 29 83 6 17 possessing Vandalism 346 249 69 106 31 Weapons: Carrying, possessing, etc 1535 648 42 887 58 Prostitution and commercialized vice 5029 1187 20 4842 80 Sex offenses (Except forcible rape & 246 194 79 52 c,,a, prostitution Narcotic Drug Laws - Total 1351 894 66 457 34 Opium or cocaine & their derivatives 217 156 72 61 28 (morphine, heroin, codeine) a. Marijuana b. 879 577 66 302 34

Synthetic narcotics - manufactured 2 c 2 100 0 narcotics which can cause true drug addiction (Demerol, methadones) Other danderous non - narcotic drugs 253 159 62 94 38 (Barbiturates, Benzedrine) d. Gambling - Total 3064 559 18 2505 82 Bookmaking (Horse & Sport Book) a. 31 31 100 0

Numbers & Lottery b. 3 2 67 1 33 All other gambling 3030 526 17 2504 83

Offenses against family & children 1 0 1 100 Driving under the influence 2894 2047 71 847 29 Liquor laws 2472 1533 62 939 38

Drunkenness 21782 17402 79 4378 20 2 1 Disorderly conduct 1728 1160 67 568 33

Vagrancy 1389 893 65 495 35 1 All other offenses (Except traffic) 1336 713 47 .623 53 Suspicion 2788 1563 56 1225 44

TOTAL 57340 34321 59 23014 40 5 1 213

TABLE 98 SEX OF PERSONS ARRESTED 18 YEARS OF AGE AND OVER

Classification of Offenses Total Male % Female %

Murder and nonnegligent Manslaughter 180 144 80 36 20 Manslaughter by negligenc. 25 23 92 2 8

Forcible rape 136 134 99 2 1 Robbery 630 559 89 11 11 Aggravated assault 413 334 81 79 19 Burglary - Breaking or entering 1328 1244 94 84 6 Larceny - Theft (Except auto theft) 3884 2316 60 1568 40 Auto theft 623 595 96 28 4 Other assaults 2049 1858 91 191 9 Arson 60 47 78 13 22 Forgery & counterfeiting 481 352 73 129 27 Fraud 519 428 82 91 18 Embezzlement 16 12 75 4 25 Stolen Property: Buying, receiving, possessing 35 29 83 6 17 Vandalism 346 300 87 46 13 Weapons: Carrying, possessing, etc 1535 1342 87 193 13 Prostitution & commercialized vice 6029 439 7 5590 93 Sex offenses (Except forcible rape & prostitution) 246 240 98 6 2 Narcotic Drug Laws - Total 1351 1166 86 185 14 Opium or cocaine and their deri vati ves (morphine, heroin and codeine) a. 217 172 79 45 21 Marijuana b. 879 800 91 79 9 Synthetic narcotics - manufactured 2 2 100 0 narcotics which can cause true drug addiction (Demerol, Methadones) Other dangerous non-narcotic drugs 253 192 76 61 24 (Barbiturates, Benzedrine) d. Gambling - Total 3064 2913 95 151 5 Bookmaking (Horse & sport book) a. 31 28 90 3 10

Numbers and Lottery b. 3 3 100 . 0 All other gambling c 3030 2882 95 148 5

Offenses against family & children 1 0 0 1 100 Driving under the influence 2894 2667 92 227 8 Liquor Laws 2472 1961 79 511 21 Drunkenness 21782 20530 94 1252 6 Disorderly conduct 1728 1493 86 235 14 Vagrancy 1389 1259 91 130 9 All other offenses (Except traffic 1105 83 231 17 Suspicion gg 2281 82 507 18 TOTAL 51340 214

of all cases involving robbery; and 53 percent of all arrests

involving murder and nonnegligent manslaughter involved blacks

in Houston, according to figures contained in the Annual Report

of the Police Department for 1970.

For individuals 18 years of age and over, arrest statistics are similar to those for persons younger in age.. Whites were arrested more for marijuana and other types of drug abuse

than were blacks. The more serious crimes, however, show a disproportionate representation for black adults. Robbery, aggravated assault, carrying and possessing weapons, burglary, and gambling are the leading categories where black arrests surpass those for whites. The crimes of violence, prostitution and commercialized vice are those for which black adults are more often arrested. Blacks 18 years of age and over were arrested more often for counterfeiting and forgery than whites or blacks under 18 years of age.

For all arrests in the city for 1970, males were arrested more often than females for all offenses. The total number of arrests for persons 18 years of age and over was 57,340 for 1970; for those 18 years of age and under, the number was 14,373.

Criminal statistics on arrests by race for

Houston compare favorably with those for the United States as a whole. Data published by the Federal Bureau of Investigation for

1971 included figures presented by 4,088 agencies, representing a breakdown of arrests for city and suburban areas. Data are 215

supplied for several racial and ethnic categories, including thirty-two major crime classifications. Percentages for "other races" include all races other than blacks and whites.

NATIONAL STATISTICS ON CRIME

For the nation as a whole, blacks have the greater percentage of arrests in the Criminal Homicide category, with a rate of 67.6 percent of the arrests for murder as compared with

30 percent for whites and less than three percent for other races.

This percentage represents almost three times black proportionate population representation in cities throughout this country.

Whites are more likely to be arrested for manslaughter than blacks. The percentage rates for whites and blacks are reversed when compared for such classification as murder versus manslaughter.

In these classifications, the percentage of arrests of blacks for murder is 67.7 percent; whites are arrested for manslaughter in about 71.1 percent of the cases while blacks are arrested in 26.2 percent of the cases.

In the crime classifications for "Forcible Rape", "Robbery," and "Aggravated Assault," members of the black population dominate each of these categories. In fact, blacks are arrested in greater percentages than whites and in twice as great numbers than their percentage distribution in the population. Tables 99, 100, and 101 represent total city arrests, for the United States in 1971, for persons under 18 years of age, and 18 years of age and over, by race and sex. CITY ARRESTS BY RACE, 1971 CRIME - TABLE 99 Total Offense Charged 1 357 221 otal 959,564 Arrest underto 18 367 643 enro 30,014 t ers R ii to 70.7 Percent Distribution Negro 27.1 All ()theft 2.3 ForcibleCr(b)Manslaughter(a)Murder Irma rape and nonnegligent by negligence manslaughter ornici de: 2,5291,104 151 846105244 1,636 829 37 4731 9 69.522.133.5 64.724.575.1 1.86.02.8 AggravatedLarceny-theftBurglLziy-breakingRobbery assault or entering 263,559114,08422,82117,263 178,38169,645 7,3165,233 42,04117,071 9,583 2,398 364 517 67.761.042.422.9 55.530.136.974.8 2.12.22.1 =pertAutoVio.!ent- crimetheft 430 869 43,71753 226 281 281 13,63933 255 140 08229,1191879,445 596 95,733 1506 959 375 65.362.53 .2 32.566.634.9 2.22.12.6 ForgeryArson and counterfeiting er assau ts u tota or above o enses 4,5713,046 2,1993,376 1,151 802 4445 72.273.9 25.226.3 ffr.rgal1.51.0 Sta.!EnbezzlementFraud en property; buying, receiving, 2,997 221 1,620 180 1,332 40 176T--47.2--787-7272-45 1 54.181.4 44.418.1 1.4 .5 ./-Weapons: Carrying, possessing,Vandalism etc.'possessing 13,92465,65215,436 51,755 9,7657,312 12,981 6,2475,,442 365916229 11 63.352.578.8 44.919.835.3 2.51.31.5 . SexProstitution offense,s, and (Except commerciprostitur; forcible all zed on rapevi ce and 7,6951,096 4,967 422 2,573 663 155 64.538.5 60.533.4 2.01.0 DrivingOffensesGamblingNarcotic underdrugagainst lawsthe familyinfluence and children 61,810 4,0071,800 563 53,461 3,641 477329 1,4167,156 282 81 923 8455 5 90.984.718.386.5 14.411,678.7 7.0 2.02.13.1 .9 VagrancyDisorderlyDrunkennessLiquor laws conduct 111,37761,00834,169 7,732 28,70757,18871,305 5,423 37,625 2,0493,4582,446 2,4472,0041,374 260 64.093.770.184.0 26.533.810.1 4.0 2.23.35.9 AllRunawaysCurfewSuspi other ci andon offenses loitering (Except law violationstraffic) 135,303198,896 89,47316,185 113,768145,91467,89112,460 18,21719,39349,302 3,666 2,1893,3183,680 59 84.175.977.073.4 13.521.722.724.8 2.51.8 .4 Offense Charged CITY ARRESTS BY RACE, 1971 - CON'T CRIME - TABLE 100 Arrests 18 Whiteand over Negro All others White Percent Distribution Negro AT1" others (b)(a)Criminal ManslaughterMurder homicide: and nonnegligent by negligence manslaughter Total 3,9721581 9,2011,569 2 623 139 2,8991,116 1 198 152 6,088 418 151 290 214 35 71.166.031.5 26.666.230.2 2.32.33.9 Burglary-breakingAggravatedRobberyForcible rapeassault or entering 105,29747,52279,574 9,011 60,70336,99414,884 3,816 42,52140,74731,637 5,035 2,0731,0011,833 160 57.646.531.342.3 66.655.940.451.2 2.12.34.41.7 AutoVioientLarceny-theft theft crim 145,308258,827 44 E40 163,19758,59324;416 83,5071889,738 943 5,8923,2081 281 40.354.763.1 57.542.434.7 2.12.33.8 TITE77770177ArsonProperty crime Subtotal for above Offenses 555 190031408,764t641 3,496 248,3161b9,99430727- 2,078 235,127151,202 76,608 1,318 12,489 9,2465,531 100 59.457.955.460.7 37.740.34'2.737.0 2.82.31.8 StolenEmbezzlementFraudForgery Property: and counterfeiting Buying, receiving, 54,82326,2E5 4,949 37,73516,454 3,514 16,608 9',5951,399 480236 45 71.068.862,6 28.130.336.5 .9.8.8 Weapons:ProstiVandalism tuti on and cominercipossessing al Carrying, possessing, etc. zed vice 25,02830,10338,34372,339 13,34230,61216,60617,052 24,51640,24512,559 7,799 1,482 623485492 66.356.634.842.3 63.955.641.731.2 2.02.51.61.3 GamblingNarcoticSex offenses drug (Exceptlaws prostitutionforcible rape and i 2)0,914 57,24930,256 141,69616,39222,736 48,03156,589 6,712 2,6292,826 808 24.470.575.1 71.428.222.2 4.21.32.7 LiquorDrivingOffensesDrunkenness laws under against the familyinfluence and children 1,261,817 111,256356,96929,735 909,028277,78190,61418,235 266,432 69,51437,86911,112 86,357 2,7739,674 370 61.472.081.477.8 21.119.537.416.1 6.82.42.71.2 SuspicionAllVagrancyDisorderly other offenses conduct (Except traffic) 414,874420,831 32,89944,641 283,305254,858 21,41631,648 121,696151,63911,83110,962 14,334 9,8731,162 521 65.168.360.670.9 29.333.326.536.0 2.42.51.63.3 RunawaysCurfew and loitering law violations ____.1110M,NO - - -- aszningOinir 4 088 a encies; AmmgmsommerTfrimmumffifirirl"' CITY 1971 ARRESTS BY 1971- CON'T Total Offense Charged ----__ 52570,013 Total estirratec10222210021 3,728,646 white Total Arrests 1,656,386 Negro A1T others 184,981 White 66.9 Percent Negro 29.7 Distribution All others 3.4 MirForcible (b)(a)Tin Manslaughter rape by negligence Murder and nonnegligent afmanslaughter horn' ci de: 12,15210,966 1,841 4,9713,286 6,9677,428 428 252214 50 40.971.130.0 26.267.757.3 2.71.72.3 AggravatedLarcenyBurglary-breakingRobbery -theft assault or entering 558,029232,111101,389 74,643 364,173137,70146,33621,154 181,98052,82551,94189,857 11,876 4,5532,2281,548 65.345.728.359.3 69.632.638.752.1 2.12.22.1 ProoertAuto theftViolent crime Subtotal for a ove offenses crime 1 092 648 891199,150101 657 517 638561 51455 75,7459 581 311 066 39 229 19 136 4,422,707 63.038.058.7 59.834.938.6 2.22.6 ArsonFraudForgeryOther assaults and couterfeiting 244,974 60,93130,966 8,683 137,84541,10419,507 102,471 19,28011,168 2,658 4,658 547291146 67.563.067.7 .3 31.636.141.830.6 1.81.9 .9.8 VandalismStolenEmbezzlement Property: possessing Buying, receivin 96,66849,194 5,526 28,72873,192 21.89819,725 1,505 1,578 741 52 75.758.471.8 27.222.740.1 1.5 .9 SexWeapons:Prostitution offenses (Except and commercialized prostitution)forcible rape vice And Carrying, possessing, etc. 39,30892,05542,789 28,75914,80039,978 27,48250,187 9,577 1,890 972570 73.234.643.4 24.464.254.5 2.52.11.2 OffensesGamblingNarcoticDriving drugagainstunder laws the family influence and children 278,326379,95969,84532,694 204,817296,392 19,98816,934 50,03069,61672,51812,310 11,049 2,8813,893 396 61.178.024.273.6 25.019.137.771.6 2.91.24.21.5 VagrancyDrunkennessLiquorDisorderly laws conduct 1,324,159 546,212183,611 53,543 958,814336,773157,399 37,733 275,875192,57114,36721,953 16,86889,470 1,4434,259.. 61.770,572.485.7 26.820,812.035.3 6.82.72.33.0 CurfewRunawaysSuspicionAll other and loiteringoffenses (Exceptlaw violations traffic) 135,303664,062 89,47349,0:34 113,768451,98967,89133,876 198,24819,39314,62818,217 13,825 3,3182,189 580 69.068.184.1754.9 21.713.529.829.9 2.51.22.1 219

As shown in the tables cited above, when statistics for

arrests are viewed, using age as a variable, the percentage

distribution for those arrested under 18 years of age is higher

than for those arrested for the age group, 18 years of age and

over. In the "Under 18 Years" category, blacks lead the number of

arrests for murder, with a percentage representation of 75.1 percent. The figure is about 9 percent higher than those arrested

for the same offense, 18 years of age and over.Whites are

arrested more often for "Property Crime," the illegal use and sale of drugs, and white collar crimes such as forgery, embezzlement,

and counterfeiting. The aforementioned data are representative of crimes which occur in cities and for which individuals are arrested.

City Arrests vs. Suburban Arrests

In the suburbs, whites make up the major arrests for all categories of crime. The percentage distribution of arrests in

"suburbia" includes 83.5 percent for whites and about 15 percent for blacks. In the cities, blacks are twice as likely to be arrested for murder as whites. This figure decreases when suburban arrests are considered. When whites are compared with whites, for city in relation to the suburbs, the rate of suburban arrests is greatest for areas involving property crimes. Crimes of violence, including murder and manslaughter, are higher when viewed in terms of suburban arrests. Most of these offenses and arrests involve white persons. 220

Tables 102, 103, and 104 contain statistics on arrests for offenses committed in suburban areas for the United States in 1971. Tables

105, 106, and 107 are summaries of total arrests in the United

States by race and offense for the same period.

DIMENSIONS OF THE CRISIS OF CRIME

In his 1968 State of the Union address, the late President

Lyndon B. Johnson made a firm commitment to fight crime. The Con- gress of the United States at that time voiced its sentiment through sustained applause to his pledge. The response of Congress to late

President Johnson's pledge was viewed as a response to the desires of its constituency. In the years that followed, President Nixon re- affirmed Johnson's commitment to eradicate crime in America, and during the campaign for his first term of office as President, his total strategy for his political game plan involved the slogan, "law and order." The Nixonian political strategy symbolized a national pre- occupation with this issue. Unfortunately, the issue of law and order was eventually viewed as a culturally acceptable slogan to cam- ouflage racial and class prejudices. To many blacks, the Nixon-oriented slogan of law and order was a means of making white Americans comfortable in their prejudices. Despite President Nixon's alleged commitment to the alleviation of crime in America, the rising level of crime and violence continues.

In Houston, as has happened in other cities, the crime problem has become serious enought to elicit common fears among blacks and CRIME - TABLE 102 Total Offense Charged SUBURBAN ARRESTS BY RACE, 1971 498,956Total 4371497 Whi te Arrest under 18 58,120Negro All Others White 87.7 Percen Negro 11.6 iistri.ution All Others 0.7 (a)Criminal (b)Murder Manslaughter homicide and nonnegligent by negligence manslaughter : 166 55 5087 75 4 3039 4 1 90.952.4 45.2 7.3 1.82.4 AggravatedBurglary-breakingForcibleRobbery rape or entering assault 41,018 5,0953,809 582 33,938 3,5281,769 399 6,7732,0241,523 176 307 4416 7 82.769.268.646.4 29.916.553.130.2 1.2 .7.8.4 ViolentAutoProl2rty_criLarceny-theft theft crime me 142,516 85,74015 758 117,549 1270,732 879 24,07114,523 2 775 896104792 82.581.7 16.917.6 .6.7.5 OtherForgeryArson assaults and counterfeiting Subtotal for above offenses 152 23 13,0 ,884 999 123 382 1,687 832 27,873 3. 160191 968 67 83.389.58 3.3 . 16.010.118.3 .3 .7.4.6 StolenEmbezzlementFraud property; buying, receiving, 637126 117544 91 8 21 92.985.4 14.3 6.3 .5.8.4 Weapons:Vandalism possessing Carrying, possessing, etc. 29,449 3,8405,991 27,239 4,5993,101 , 2,0701,364 715 140 2428 80.892.576.8 22.818.6 7.0 .6.4 NarcoticSexPros offensesti tuti drug on (exceptlawsand commerci prostiforcible al tuti rapeon and ) i zed vi ce 27,799 2,852 79 26,362 2,400 53 1,304 437 25 133 15 1 94.884.267.1 15.331.6 4.7 1.3 .5.4 OffensesGamblingDriving againstunder the family influence and children 1,551 260363 1,508 168327 923135 --- 12 1 97.290.164.6 35.4 2.09.6 - -- .7.3 VagrancyDisorderlyDrunkennessLiquor laws conduct 26,99836,69512,984 1,716 26,22531,70012,111 1,566 4,777 689516143 218184257 7 91.393.386.497.1 13.0 8.35.31.9 1.4 .4.5.9 AllRunawaysCurfewSuspicion other and offenses loitering (except law viclationstraffic) 68,21628,01676,736 6,505 63,51926,33368,324 5,772 3,9661,5047,977 726 659179435 7 93.294.088.789.0 11.210.4 5.85.4 .9.7.1.5 SUBURBAN ARRESTS BY RACE, 1971 CRIME - TABLE 103 Arrests an. over CONT. 'ercen istri ution Criminal homicide: Total Offense Charged Total966,349 White788,415 Negro165,425 All Others 12,509 White 81.6 Negro 17 1 ATI Others 1 3 RobberyForcible(b)(a) ManslaughterMurder rape and nonnegligent by negligence manslaughter 9,7372,5031,904 642 5,1321,8001,074 540 4,537 780814 98 682316 4 69.256.452.784.1 46.630.042.815.3 .7.8.5.9 AutoAggravatedLarceny-theftBurglary-breaking theft assault or entering 24,41811,05374,54133,850 26,66056,37617,145 8,242 17,444 2,6866,9827,0:34 208239125721 74.675.678.870.2 24.323.420.628.8 1.11.0 .6.9 ViolentOtherProperty crime assaults crime Subtotal for above offenses 158,748119,44456,46038,662 116,96991,27825,15143,018 13,08640,3T527,11213,155 l,4041,054 346 356 6t.,76.273.776.4 22.723.225.43cl 1.0 .6.9 StolenEmbezzlementFraudArsonForgery property; and counterfeiting buying, receiving, 24,378 9,3821,260 832 19,937 1,0407,216 652 4,3922,108 198172 495822 8 81.882.576.978.4 22.515.718.020.7 1.8 .2.5.9 r3 Weapons:ProstitutionVandalism and commercializedpossessing vice Carrying, possessing, etc. 14,73911,190 2,5577,064 1,6219,6816,0328,339 4,9422,773 915973 116 215978 63,465.785.474.5 35.833.513.824.8 .8.7.6 SexGamblingNarcotic offenses drug (except laws forcibleprosti tuti rape on) and 69,494 6,0867,985 60,421 3,4767,163 2,5868,764 755 309 6724 57.186.989.7 42.512.6 9.5 .4.9 OffensesDrunkennessLiquorDriving laws againstunder the family influence and children 189,394113,147 34,07215,850 156,811101,44331,51212,397 26,67010,605 2,1753,309 5,9131,099 385144 92.582.889.778,2 20.914.1 6.49.4 3.01.1 .9.9 AllSuspicionVagrancyDisorderly other offenses conduct (except traffic) 146,794 82,211 7,4977,209 121,258 67,638 6,0485,643 23,87613,869 1,4151,467 1,660 604 9934 80.782.678.382.4 18.920.316.916.3 1.11.4 .7.4 SOURCE:RunawaysCurfew and loitering law violations Uniform Crime Reports, FBI (1971). CRIME - TABLE 104 Offense Charged 2 207 a encies 1971 estimated sosulationSUBURBAN 47 302 ARRESTS 000 BY RACE, 1971 - CONT. Total White Tota rrests Negro All others White Percent Negro I i stri uti on All others (a) Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter Total e: 1,563 018 2,219 750 1 304 439 1,221 239 660 106971 18 919 2716 55.083.5 14.143.815.3 1.2 AggravatedRobberyForcible(b) Manslaughter rape assault by negligence 31,08214,715 3,405 21,677 2,3657,387 628 9,1037,2281,008' 100302 32 69.569.750.283.7 29.329.649.1 2.2..9 .9.7 AutoBurglary-breakingLarceny-theft theft or entering 174,6062880,357 228 138,0782265,010 183 35,15214,767 51765 1376 461280580 63.378.679.180.9 20.435.620.118.4 1.1 .9.7 ---7171771Tra-e=aul.ts-04.nalPropertyViolent crimecrime for a ove offenses 283,1913351362 72,gltirr-.17,377 258225)271 549 18,31055,68474 TOO 2S71-32236 -77.179.5 2 219.7 .1* .8 ArsonEmbezzlementFraudForgery and counterfeiting 26,27811,059 1,5582,939 21,405 2,5451,3048,516 4,8132,475 229377 25606817 81.577.086.683.7 22.414.718.312.8 1.6 .2.6.5 raN.3 Weapons:VandalismStolen property: possessing Carrying, possessing, etc. Buying,receiving, 20,31139,25218,952 13,86635,73914,152 6,2734,6823,299 172214186 68.391.174.7 30.924.7 8.4 .8.5.6 NarcoticSexProstitution offenses drug and(Exceptlaws commercializedprostitution) forcible rape vice and 104,272 11,491 2,,684 92,68510,098 1,687 11,109 1,306 975 478 8721 88.987.962.9 10.711.436.3 .4.7.8 GamblingLiquorDrivingOffenses laws under against the familyinfluence and children 125,72669,24117,730 6,447 111,25365,63514,022 3,685 11,319 2,8582,7383,557 3,154 748151 24 98.488.579.157.2 20.142.5 9.04.1 2.51.1 .3.8 AllVagrancyDisorderlyDrunkenness other offenses conduct (Except traffic) 238,848125,542213,457 9,014 202,035104,669178,636 7,288 20,01728,50234,545 1,620 2,2686,319 856106 84.680.983.483.7 14.518.015.913.4 1.22.9 .9.7 SuspiRunawaysCurfew ci on and loitering law violations 68,21628,01614,002 63,59126,33311,820 2,1413,9661,504 659418 41 93.294.084.4 15.3 5.E.5.4 .9.7.2 TOTAL ARRESTS BY RACE, TABLE 105 Arrests under .18 1971 Percent Distribution (a)Criminal Murder homicide: and nonnegligent manslaughter Total Offense Charged 1,617,567 Total 1,278 1,189,933 White 861 393,095Negro 877 All Others 34,539 40 28.2White73.6 68.624.3Negro All Others 3.12.2 AggravatedRobberyForcible(b) Manslaughter rapeassault by negligence 20,65524,947 3,006 210 9,6806,3321,174 154 18,08010,545 1,764 45 430535 3611 46.939.173.325.4 51.172.558.721.4 2.12.05.4 ViolentAutoLarceny-theftBurglary-breaking theft crime or entering 296,543144,07663,28849,886 206,14717;54841,58495,220 31,26620,02984,30345,928 1 ;0726,0931,5752,928 35.265.969.566.1 62.728.431.631.9 2.52.12.0 ArsonOtherProperty assaults crime Subtotal for above offenses 51'4_003503,907 51-;728 5,469 360;753343,05177;123 4,178 1815,260 2-3,41361,57101,239 1110,596 679 1;119 52 52.465.168.176.4 29.822.745.432.8 7.1 1.12.2.1 EmbezzlementFraudForgery and counterfeiting 3,4213,783 289 2,0002,858 245 1,371 873 43 5052 1 58.575.584.8 23.114.940.1 1.41.3 .3 r7, VandalismStolen property; buying,possessing receiving, 77,20118,262 62,39712,084 8,677 13,683 6,5255,922 1,121 376256 55.766.280.8 41.917.732.4 3.71.4 - SexWeapons:Prostitution offenses (except and commercialized prostitution)forcible rape vice and Carrying, possessing, etc. 15,578 9,5951,144 6,544 450 2,873 682 178 12 68.239.3 29.959.6 1.81.0 OffensesGamblingNarcoticDriving againstdrugunder laws the family influence and children 77,504 5,1441,941 770 68,336 4,720 660434 1,4527,848 307100 1,320 117 1055 91.822.485.788.2 13.074.810.1 6.0 2.21.61.23.0 VagrancyDisorderlyDrunkennessLiquor laws conduct 123,476 41,43974,790 8,731 70,40081,80734,968 6,326 39,0012,6612,1183,973 2,6682,4981,729 287 66.394.172.584.4 24.331.6 9.63.6 2.16.02.23,2 SuspiAllRunawaysCurfew other cion and offenses loitering (except law violationstraffic) 186,628240,787 97,88418,000 161,614183,535 75,66514,159 20,74153,00319,859 3,764 4,2732,3604,249 77 86.677.378.776.2 20.322.011.120.9 2.32.51.8 .4 TABLE 106 Total Offense Charged TOTAL ARRESTS4,702,824 BY RACE, 1971 - CON'TTotal 3,232,010Arrests 18White and Over 1,302,891 Negro All It ers.167,923 68.7 ite Percent -Distribution 27.7Negro 3.5 Ot ers CriminalForcible(b)(a) MurderManslaughter homicide: rape and nonnegli by negligence gent manslaughter 11,68211,255 2,299 5,7541,6964,142 5,7026,853 553 260226 50 49.373.836.8 60.948.824.1 1.92.12.3 Burglary-breakingAggravatedLarceny-theftRobbery assault or entering 3n2,43A135,645100,538 54,220 iq$1,12485,87452,02418,864 97,81347,21346,28234,263 6,4992,2322,5581,093 65.563.351.734.8 63.232.334.846.0 2.11.82.0 AutoPropertyVio theftent crimecrime 1 53 777 315,48931 491 78 165,78520,759 10,584 1 527 64.158.6 33.738.6 2.22.8 OtherArson assaults Subtotal for above offenses 671,82228,119491,858 4,404 5 140,173397,969 2,842 259,438 83,757 1,454 1 4,445 4,1 89 356108 64.561.459.2 33.036.738.6 1. 81.02.42.f StolenEmbezzlementFraudForgery property; and counterfeiting, buying, receiving, 85,95835,140 5,773 64,72523,629 4,259 20,61011,155 1,459 623 55 67.273.875.3 25.324.031.7 .9.7 CTINOIN) Weapons:ProstitutionVandalism and commercializedpossessing vice Carrying, possessing, etc. 40,36383,37938,36030,582 21,55514,72138,19023,595 25,14243,55714,181 8,304 1,632 584500723 61.536.545.870.5 62.352.227.237.0 1.32.31.91.5 GamblingNarcoticSex offenses drug (exceptlaws prostitution)forcible rape and 257,393 72,08436,835 191,841 19,70328,673 62,59749,489 7,281 2,8922,955 881 27.374.577.8 68.724.319.8 4.01.22.4 LiquorOffensesDrunkennessDriving laws againstunder thefamily influence and chi ldred 1,395,520 131,613449,28550,158 1,022,061 108,890359,389 34,511 280,952 19,33878,19414,996 95,50711,702 3,385 651 68.873.282.780.0 20.114.729.917.4 6.52.62.61.3 SuspicionAllVagrancyDisorderly other offenses conduct (except traffic) 533,974466,64150,20735,184 382,500293,22523,34436,215 139,023158,016 11,27112,677 12,45115,400 1,315 569 66.362.871.672.1 26.025.232.033.9 2.51.62.33.3 SOURCE:*FiguresRunawaysCurfew andin someloitering columns law violations Data contained in tables were taken entirely from do not add to the total the Uniform Crime Report - 1971. Issued by L. Patrick Gray, III TABLE 107 Offense Charged (5,610 agencies; 1971 estimated population 146,564,000) Total TOTAL ARRESTS BY RACE, 1971 White Total Arrests Negro CONT. All Others White Percent Distribution Negro All Others (b)(a)Criminal ManslaughterMurder homicide: and nonnegligent by negligence. manslaughter Tot a' 6,626,035 13,3022,698 4,623,891 1,9744,716 1,791,474 8,276 626 210t120 310 98 73.235.569.8 23.262.227.0 2.43.63.2 AggravatedRobberyForcible rapeassault 126,67383,93615,468 64,50220,524 7,386 59,44355,745 7,781 2,7281,667 301 50.931.647.8 66.450.346.9 2.21.91.9 AutoBurglary-breakingLarceny-theft theft or entering 640,421297,147121,773 412,01R192,82775t949 195,418 42,59698,666 12,965'5 ;00 65,6543,228 62.467.564.9 -54.835.030.533.2 '2.6 2.0 ViolentProperty crime crime Subtotal for above offenses 1,059,3411 239,379301,418 805,896700794103,128 131,245468,571336,700 26,95121,847 61.966.243.1 31.836.0 2.12,12a) ArsonFraudForgery and counterfeiting er assau is 290,836 93,09541,14210,638 174,27868,97627,848 7,588 111,12t23,41812,782 2,882 5-,42T- 422701168 74.167.75D.971.3 25.231.327.138.2 1.91.01.5 .8 rs) \ VandalismStolenEmbezzlement property; buying,possessing receiving, 115,51661,434 6,575 90,46338,582 4,914 23,15321,969 1,595 1,900 883 66 62.874.778.3 24.320.035.8 1.61.41.0 SexWeapons:Prostitution offenses (except and commercialized prostitution)forcible rape vice and Carrying, possessing, etc. '105,781 48,15344,874 36,60316,21949,650 28,13210,47754,057 1,0732,074 523 76.036.146.9 21.862.751.1 2.31.12.0 DrivingOffensesGamblingNarcotic underdrugagainst lawsthe familyinfluence and children 480,801354,783 55,67474,911 383,106273,73320,37038,593 51,59481,39416,38476,652 16,301 2,9474,398 697 69.327.279.777.2 68.921.616.929.4 3.41.33.91.2 VagrancyDrunkennessDisorderlyLiquor laws conduct 1,472,917 606318226,148 60144 1,085,153 387,620196,993 43,234 291,335200,50423,74715,285 18,19489,565 1,6255,408 63.987.171.973.7 25.433.119.810.5 6.45.63.02.3 CurfewSuspiAllRunaways other don and offensesloitering (except law violations traffic) 186,628837,23197,88453,184 161,614599,289 75,66537,503 220,690 20,74119,85915,035 17,252 4,2732,360 646 86.677.370.571.6 11.120.328.326.4 2.32.51.22.1 227

whites, rich and poor, and young and old alike. In an earlier

report prepared for a former mayor of Houston (1961), a leading

expert in criminology made this statement in reference to

Houston:

As we view our large and rapidly growing metropolis, there is forced upon us the vivid image of a corporate and functional organization of diverse personalities who are obligated to a common system of ordinances, statutory and constitutional laws. Where respect for these standards breaks down, the entire city suffers. It is this quality of human inter- dependency that makes crime, like disease, a dangerous enemy of man and a malignant tumor which causes rapid deterioration of the social body.

Having viewed statistics on crime for Houston which

indicated a disproportionate percentage of blacks involved,

Bullock discusses some of the primary causes of this imbalance.

One of the primary causes of Houston's high LuLal crime and murder rates is areal in nature. It grows out of the tendency for rapid urban expansion to create areal transition out of which crime can thrive and flourish.

To the author, black communities had experienced the

kind of uncontrolled urban expansion and deterioration to

6 which he referred.

Crime and violence should not be viewed as a single

sociological phenomenon. They embrace many dimensions. For

the black community, the more basic causes are seldom raised

in public discussions. The basic causes of crime are multifaceted 228

in scope and dimension. For many years we have seen that Houston's rapid areal and functional expansion, uncontrolled by proper planning, has facilitated the development of deteriorating areas in the inner city, particularly in black neighborhoods. These deteriorating areas supply the proper habitat in which criminal behavior can germinate, grow, and flourish. Uncontrolled planning and area instability tend to increase social instability of the areas involved, rendering them highly fluid and tremendously uncertain. Instability is further facilitated by changes in land use which many traditionally stable black communities are now experiencing.

Residential segregation, an ecological phenomenon which has not disappeared from the scene in Houston, contributes to the multifaceted causes of crime.

Just as unguarded urban expansion has a direct effect in disorganizing the areas, so does it have indirect effect in disorganizing the personalities of the people exposed to it. It is possible for areal instability to set in motion a sociological process which ultimately effects the basic personalities of individuals, rendering them more inclinded to commit crimes of violence or to condone them.

Bullock described this phenomenon this way:

It aggregates masses cf underprivileged people; feeds into their collective psychology certain frustrating forces that lower their collective psychology and certain frustrating forces that lower their threshold for personal irritations; and reinforces the general community's will to treat them differentially.?

In essence, residential segregation creates an inclination

toward violence and a will to tolerate it. 229

Other contributory factors which have not been seriously understood as related to black criminality have been the unfavorable attitudes toward law enforcement. Discrimination is still a very serious problem in law enforcement agencies, the courts, and penal institutions. The general public mood exemplified in the acceptable phrase of "law and order" has not surface6 to the point of raising voices against discriminatory practices in the administration of justice. Evidence of certain inequities exists between black and white, and particularly, rich and poor. Attitudinal patterns have become more deeply entrenched by virtue of certain experiences encountered before the "bar of justice." The dual standard concept of law enforcement in our society is seen in the disproportionate number of arrests among blacks, in convictions, in the length of prison sentences, in plea bargaining, and in general relationships involving policemen and black citizens.

PLEA BARGAINING

It has been estimated that 90 percent of the defendants in the criminal justice system are convicted on pleas of guilty rather than by jury trials. Figures for Houston in this regard were not available from the reports we received from the District Attorney's

Office. However, we were able to examine figures for Dallas. In

Dallas, 90 percent of the defendants chose to plead guilty rather than risk jury trial (Dallas Times Herald, May 31, 1972). The 230

defendant who pleads guilty stands as completely convicted by his own admission as though he has been convicted by a jury. Last year in Dallas, 6,595 offenders were convicted on guilty pleas while 691 were convicted during jury trials. For pleading guilty, th,: defendant expects more lenient punishment than he might have received by having jury trials. This is not always the case. In addition, there is no way to determine whether the guilty plea is a result of bargaining or actual guilt. Plea bargaining usually occurs if the defendant does not have a lawyer. The so-called

"cop-out" man attempts to negotiate a guilty plea with defendants who are too poor or ill-informed to obtain legal counsel. A substantial proportion of those pleading guilty are black. One black defendant, in recalling his encounters with the "cop-out" man, related this incident: "I pleaded guilty because I thought the jury would convict me and give me ten years instead of the six Ireceived. The cop-out man sensed that I knew how tough juries are, especially on ex-cons." In this case, as with many others, punishment was determined during plea bargaining, and pressure tactics are frequently used in such cases. Plea bargaining is more prevalent among black defendants than whites; it takes place with poor people more than rich people. This leads to the question: Can there be equality under law when obvious discrepancies exist in income and class in our society?

Some defense attorneys agree that guilty pleas are a necessary aspect of the criminal justice process, and most strongly 231 object to the cop-out man and plea bargaining with defendants not represented by legal counsel. Criminal District Judges John

Mead and James B. Zimmerman of Dallas indicated that they believe

the use of the cop-out man is on the way out. Mead believes that

there is a movement to begin the plea process before the defendant

is indicted (Dallas Times Herald, May 31, 1972).In an interview with District Attorney Henry Wade of Dallas County, it was learned

that, in his opinion, "the criminal justice system would break down

completely without plea bargaining and guilty pleas." In conjunction with this, Jim Bishop states in his article, "Trial and Error 'Cop-

Out' Pleas Cast Shadow on Courts," (Dallas Times Herald, lay 31,

1972), that "the American Bar Association has taken the position that plea bargaining is an appropriate form of criminal justice."

There are many additional factors which must be considered when examining the whole question of plea bargaining and its relationship to equity in the judicial process. If an individual is guilty of a crime, plea bargaining is an acceptable way to negotiate punishment; but for those who are not guilty but insecure and afraid, it means denial of equality and justice under the law. Black and poor people comprise the bulk of those making up the criminal population of our various penal institutions. They are more often in jail while awaiting trial because of insufficient funds for bond services or the lack of legal counsel. This stay in jail usually causes loss of jobs, loss of family ties, loss of dignity and self-respect, all of which are cumulative indicators of further instability in the lives of those affected. 232

ATTITUDINAL FACTORS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT

Another factor to be considered in analyzing crime in today's society is the attitudes of many citizens toward law enforcement. In- different and unfavorable attitudes toward police departments and other law enforcement agencies can lower inhibitions about crime. A particular attitudinal pattern exists in black and other minority communities.

It is the sense of self-purification which is used as an excuse for the minority contribution to crime rates. This attitude is more prevalent among lower and lower middle class blacks than middle and upper middle class blacks; it is true for lower class whites as well. This strong inclination toward self-purification results from present and past in- justices which they attribute to the dual system of law enforcement; past and current practices of discrimination and segregation. Many individuals employ their segregated status as an explanation for every illegal act committed or any problems which they experience considered counter to acceptable behavior in society.

There is one observation which is never emphasized in reporting black criminality. It is the fact that most law-abiding blacks, of all class levels, are also concerned about increasing crimes of violence in their communities. Most criminal activity among minorities, with few exceptions, represents intra-racial rather than interracial offenses. In the past, law enforcement agencies have been inclined to overlook crimes committed against individuals and property by members of the same race.

There is rather convincing evidence that these same officials use a dual standard of law enforcement -- one for blacks; another for whites. 233

An important attitudinal pattern, involving minority groups, is one which alienates them in the field of law enforcement through the negative images they have developed concerning policemen.

Negative images result from direct contacts with members of police departments. Charges of brutality and foul police practices serve to reinforce negative attitudes toward policemen in Houston.

Low income blacks view law enforcement within the framework of their own experiences with members of the police force. In low income communities, policemen are visualized as "gestapo agents," "members of the Ku Klux Klan," "pigs," and as part of the establishment. This kind of image is shaped as a result of altercations which occur with the police. Many altercations take place when persons are arrested on "suspicion" or when they are accused of being drunk. In 1971, forty-four (44%) percent of all persons arrested (over 18 years of age) in Houston for suspicion were black; 35 percent of all persons arrested for vagrancy were black; 33 percent of those arrested for disorderly conduct were black; and 20 percent of those 18 years of age and over arrested for drunkness were black. These types of criminal offenses are those which entail some degree of interpersonal contact or interaction between citizen and law enforcement officials. These interactional contacts are those which breed negative images of policemen by virtue of altercations resulting from such contacts. The workings of the criminal justice system are dependent upon certain discretionary measures and judgments used by Policemen who make arrests and de- 23z1

fine the criminal act. In addition, judgments by policemen are often subjective, reflecting social customs, values, and pressures of the larger society. Positive image building for policemen is directly related to the continuous application of professional judgment and humanistic concern by those charged with apprehending the criminal as well as those involved in prosecuting and passing judgments as to guilt or innocence. The initial point of contact with the accused often shapes the image of law enforcement held by average citizens. Negative images affect effective law enforcement and recruitment.

Police Recruitment and the Black Community

A recent report in the Houston Chronicle (April 8, 1973) indicated that "the percentage of black officers in the Houston Police

Department is less today than it was 17 years ago. In 1956, there were 32 blacks on a force of 758, or four percent of the total."

Since 1956, civil rights legislation geared toward increasing employment opportunities for blacks and other minorities has been passed, but the percentage has dropped to less than four percent

(3.4%), with 73 blacks among the 2,139 member force now in the employment of the Police Department. Even worse is the fact that only two blacks are included in the present 31-cadet trairiing class.

The failure of recruitment efforts or the lack of interest in police training by blacks and other minorities has been attributed to many factors. Inspector H.D. Caldwell, as quoted by the Houston 235

Chronicle, admitted that efforts at recruitment in Houston have been unsuccessful. Caldwell listed "peer group pressure" by the black community as a possible cause. He was also quoted as say-

ing, "the general consensus here is that the black community simply

does not define policing as an acceptable career choice for its young men." Some black leaders interviewed on this same subject

tended to disagree. Discriminatory promotional practices and the

racist image of the Police Department were listed by some black

leaders as blockages to recruitment. Citing low percentages in

upper echelon jobs as a basis for these charges, they revealed

that of the 239 detectives in the Police Department, only5 are

black. There is no black lieutenant, captain or inspector in the

Houston Police Department as of this writing.

It is not surprising that attacks upon police, both physical

and verbal, have contributed to the negative image held by the

public toward careers in law enforcement. This kind of negativism

has affected the policeman's image as a public "savior" and pro-

tector and has impaired his general efficiency as an effective po-

lice officer. The special and often difficult problems faced by urban police have inhibited rather than enhanced efforts at recruitment.

In connection with the recruitment program, T. C. Sinclair refers to the delicate and sensitive nature of police-community

relations and underscores the problem very well with this quote: 236

Police in the United States are for the most part white, upwardly mobile lower middle class, conservative in ideology and resistant to change. In most areas in the country, even where segregation has been legally eliminated for long periods, they are likely to grow up without any significant contact with minority and lower socio-economic class life styles -- and certainly with no experience of the realities of ghetto life. They tend to share the attitudes, biases, prejudices of the larger community, among which is likely to be § fear or distrust of Negroes and other minority groups.

It is unfortunate that this type of situation exists, particularly when it is known that the bulk of those incarcerated in jails and penal institutions throughout this country are black or members of other minority groups. Many of these same individuals are products of lower class homes and ghetto environments. The lack of understanding by those charged with the responsibility of enforcing the law can and does impede freedom and justice.

It should be noted that Houston's difficulty in recruiting blacks for police work is not unique. Other cities are experiencing similar difficulties in their recruitment efforts. Dallas and

San Antonio report that 3.2 percent of their policemen are black;

Fort Worth has three percent; but Galveston has a 14 percent representation of blacks on its police force. In New York, black and His- panic-American officers total 10 percent; in Los Angeles, blacks make up 5 percent of the force. Atlanta, Georgia is an exception by virtue of action taken to double.the number of black policemen on its force. In Atlanta, blacks represent about 22 percent of the force, with blacks comprising about 51 percent of the population for that city as of 1970. 237

The number of blacks among Texas Highway Patrolmen is also very small. In 1970-71, it was reported that there were 1,347

Texas Highway Patrolmen on duty in the State, with 39 Mexican-

Americans and two black patrolmen serving with the Department of Public Safety. A Texas Legislative Council survey (released in 1973) showed 94.7 percent of the Department of Public Safety's workers are white, 3.8 percent of the workers are Chicano, and 1.5 percent are black. Ten of the 2,233 uniformed Department of Public

Safety law enforcement personnel are black and 72 are Mexican-

American. Department of Public Safety director Wilson E. Spier insists that the department is doing everything it can to encourage more minority group members to apply for jobs with the agency.

FEDERAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE SUPPORT

With few exceptions, the criminal justice program formulated and administered by the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration

(LEAA) has done little in the way of reducing crime rates in the black community. This opinion corresponds favorably with the findings of a study made for the National Urban Coalition. Four years after Congress authorized funds for LEAA, little has been done to improve the nation's ability to measure or understand the problem of crime. The study made for the Urban Coalition emphasized fundamental points which are not generally known by the public. A major 238

share of the funds for the administration of criminal justice were used for purchases of helicopters, salaries, radio communications systems, and other "hardware." The study also charges that.:

. . . because LEAA has failed to take adequate precautionary steps, its grants are reinforcing the existing discriminatory patterns of the criminal justice system, rather than seeking to eliminate them.

The study further advises:

. . . LEAA has poured funds into perpetuating the very system it was designed to correct. The new industry emphasizes the combat role of the police.

It has alarming potential . . for the creation of a domestic military apparatus far removed from the traditional, local service-oriented police department.

In many cities and communities throughout Texas and the

nation, minority group citizens are complaining that "criminal justice funds are being used to prepare the police for more sophisti- cated approaches to apprehending members of minority groups;" others charge that the equipment being purchased represents a potential threat to their privacy and security. In line with these perceived ideas, the Urban Coalition study cites repeated purchases of hardware without any prior in-depth analysis of "actual needs, and with no weighing of countervailing individual rights or community values about the proper function of police in a free society."

Other more serious charges brought out in the year-long study were such complaints as accusing the agency (LEAA) of stimulating the development of non-lethal equipment such as "esoteric things as 239 special drugs which, upon injection, immobilize the victims; the

"instant cocoon" that releases a plastic spray, creating a tough, plastic membrane; the wire gun that shoots coiled, barbed wire more than 80 feet; sticky substances like "instant banana peel,"

"instant mud," "instant jungle," -- the latter being a quick-set enveloping gelatin, and other such products.

The non-lethal weapons are purported to be tested by the

Army's land warfare laboratories for evaluation. In conjunction with this testing and evaluation, the Law Enforcement Assistance

Administration made a grant to the Army of a reported $250,000.

The emphasis on "hardware" permeates the whole of the criminal justice program which was originally conceived as a program set up to improve the nation's ability to measure and understand the causes of crime; to enhance the delivery of justice through the judicial process. While many persons tended to disagree with some of the findings of the Urban Coalition study, there is evidence that some of the charges have measures of validity.

Texas Criminal Justice Council

Pursuant to Sections 203(a) and 203(b) of the Omnibus

Crime Contrbl and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (as amended), the

Governor of the State of Texas established by Executive Order of

October, 1968, the Criminal Justice Council. This Council was given the responsibility for developing a statewide plan for the improvement of law enforcement throughout the State. Another of its functions was to define, develop, and correlate programs and 240

projects for the State and the units of general local governments, and to combine efforts for improving law enforcement in the State and to establish priorities for improvements.

The basic strategy for upgrading law enforcement personnel involved developing programs which would attract better qualified personnel into police service and developing and implementing programs which would increase the competence of persons already employed by the agencies. A large proportion of the training re- commended by the Criminal Justice Council involves professional police education. As of January 1, 1971, eight institutions of higher learning in the state were authorized by the Coordinating

Board to grant bachelor degrees in law enforcement. None of these institutions were predominantly black, which poses a question as to whether sincere efforts are being made to recruit and attract blacks and other minorities into law enforcement careers. While some blacks may enroll in such programs at predominantly white institutions such as Sam Houston State University, it is believed that they would be attracted in greater numbers if such courses were offered at some of the predominantly black institutions, even if on a cooperative basis. Texas Southern University, a logical place to provide such course offerings because of its urban location and the rising crime rates among blacks in Houston, does not have such a program. Bishop College of Dallas offers some courses, but these are on a limited basis,and they are primarily for the training of present employees of the Dallas Police Department. In checking 261

statistics on enrollment, none were available for Bishop College.

However, it was revealed through inquiries that the enrollment is fewer than 30 persons.

It appears that a logical move in police training and upgrading would be to provide for greater understanding about minority individuals and attitudes. From the data on enrollment, it is quite evident that police officers have few contacts with minority persons even on campuses where they are trained. Ex- perimental and innovative teaching projects, void of substantial minority group contacts and enrollment, are ineffective from their inception by virtue of their failures to come to grips with basic problems of understanding the subjects with which they have to deal. Unfortunately, predominantly black schools and black consultants have been overlooked or utilized minimally in the total plans of criminal justice programs and in the allocation of funds by the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration.

An examination of programs, handled through Council of Governments in Texas, will reveal that Texas is no exception to this practice.

Of all Texas schools participating in Law Enforcement Education

Program (LEEP) few, if any, are predominantly black or have predominantly black enrollments in any of the majors or curriculum courses offered. The following Table 108 shows LEEP participating colleges and universities as of July 1, 1971. Data since that time reveal little improvement in the situation. 2112 Table 108 Texas Schools Participating in LEEP With Law Enforcement Enrollmentand Majors July 11 1971 Total LE Law Law Program Enforcement Enforcement Majors Enrollment Majors Fall 1971 yinr. o ege .1 Amarillo College 53 53 72 Bishop College * * Brazosport Jr. College District * * Central exas o ege '1 een and Austin (Killeen) Christian College of the S.W. 150 * College of the Mainland 276 19 17 33 Cooke Count Jr. College 75 Dallas Ifaptist Corlege 49 55 Del Mar College 40 95 91 107 East Texas State University * * El Centro College 262 310 GaTveston County Tr. Torlege 190 74 0 37 Grayson Jr. College 67 67 Hardin - Simmons University 60 106 104 128 Henderson CountJr. College 150 85 owar ounty 50 r. o ege 8 3 20 Kilgore Col lege 75 75 Lamar University 86 161 55 64 (AA) 30 30 34 UaTe-d-OJr7COThege ii 11 Mary Ltc:rdin - Baylor College * 23 McLenridn County College 72 61 Midwestern Universit 79 ort uxas tate University Odessa Col lege 180 51 Prairie View A&M College 99 Sam Houston State University 1,133 733 879 5-an Antonio 'Union bistrict 608 608 -* San Jacinto College 59 24 50 South Texas Jr. College 118 107 103 Southwest Texas State University 568 178 253 5t.-r-crwa rd fs 'Ur i vers i ty St. Mary's University 29 Stephen F. Austin St. College * * Tarrant Co. Jr. College 260 255 300 rexarIana Coriege 75 Texas A&I University 14 14 Texas Christian University 25 25 23 Texas Wes le an Colle e * Ty err. o ege University of Texas at Arlington 333 53 60 University of Texas at Austin * * * University of Texas at El Paso * * * Uni versity of riouston * * * Victoria Jr. College 77 33 30 Wharton County Jr.Col lege * * Total 5,733

Source:Criminal Justice Plan For Texas, 1972 and1973 Austin, Texas, Crir7r77ustice CodrETT7 243

Funds spent for criminal justice programs in Texas reflect efforts toward "hardware" as well as humanistic and preventive measures in law enforcement. Various cities, including Dallas and Houston, have spent considerable sums of money on professional- izing its police, on riot control equipment, computerized services, information data depository system, crime laboratory services, and funds to improve the neural network of police departments -- a means by which they get information, make decisions, and react to criminal activity. This is the command, control, and communications system. Programs to improve the quality of police performance, particularly in the minority communities, and plans to explore more effective means of preventing crimes are generally lacking in black communities throughout the State. The programs funded deviate little from the traditional techniques utilized among juveniles, for instance. For the most part, blacks have not been totally involved in planning for the reduction of crime in their communities. These statements represent a variety of opinions secured in unstructured interviews with leading black citizens in

Houston and parts of Texas. Clyde Owens Jackson, past editor of the Houston Informer and superintendent of the South Park Post

Office, had this to say concerning training of policemen:

Examinations by which Houston policemen are promoted should be revised to show 'leadership ability' rather than knowledge of police department matters and procedures... Just because a man can read a book and give back what it contains doesn't mean he is qualified to be a supervisor. 244

He suggested that the Mayor of Houston appoint a multi-racial

committee to draw up a new Civil Service law for Houston.

Crime prevention appears to be the point at which programs

to improve justice and the enforcement of order in the society must begin. In the past, criminal justice -- in some cases --

has concerned itself with crime detection and apprehension rather

than preventive measures. This is evident in the earlier works of

academic scholars. Charges have been made against the LEAA which tend

to suggest that funds from this agency have been directed toward

developing more effective means of dealing most directly and most

swiftly with the poor and minorities, especially blacks. This is what is termed in non-academic circles as the "riot and violence

syndrome" which has saturated program planning and administration of some local police departments and state law enforcement agencies.

Proposed methods for strengthening the effect of law enforcement in our society -- indeed, in Houston and Texas must neces-

sarily include reordering priorities to include a firm commitment

to strengthen community -based treatment programs, including pro- bation, work release programs, youth service bureaus, parole and aftercare. Law enforcement must also include enforcing laws swiftly, certainly, and equitably. Attention focused in these directions would enhance greater respect for law, order, and justice in the society. To be sure, respect for law in the society is basic to

any successful crime prevention program. 245

What is needed, and needed promptly, is an agency independent of political and traditional institutional constraints generously funded with basic authority. This authority would entail the commitment to provide essential legal representation for the poor; to foster a sense of confidence not only in the court system but in the police department as well. Such an agency would seek the cooperation of black and white educators alike in a program with facilities for on-going research in prevention and legal reform.

If concerns for prevention, adequate legal representation, swift but equitable punishment for the guilty were made priorities, an improved criminal justice system would virtually be assured.

BLACK LAWYERS

Not only are minority groups poorly represented in the area of law enforcement, they are also noticeably poorly represented in the court system. Black lawyers constitute less than one percent of the legal profession. Although there are more blacks than ever before in law schools throughout the country, they are still few in number. The main obstacle that now confronts the new black law school graduates is the state bar examinations that all graduates must pass in order to begin practicing law.

The bar examination, in theory, is used presumably to test legal proficiency. In an article in Essence magazine (April, 1973),

Lynn Walker points o..It that the bar examination:

. . may be drawn up by persons who have no particular expertise in the, testing area; they may be 246

slanted toward certain types of subject matter to the virtual exclusion of others; they may be basically memory tests to see if the applicant can master nuances of local law,.

Walker feels that most important, thereis no indication that

these examinations indicate proficiency in one's ability to be a

lawyer.

For instance, in Alabama where the population is 25 percent black, there are only 28 practicing black attorneys out of a

total of 3,410 attorneys. This means that only .008 percent of the black population in Alabama is represented in'the legal profession.

In Pennsylvania, while 98 percent of all those taking the exam eventually pass, only 70 percent of the blacks pass. Between

1933 and 1943, no blacks were admitted to the bar. There are 10 million blacks in Pennsylvania, but only 130 black attorneys out of the total 12,300 lariers.

In Delaware, no blacks have passed the bar since 1959 -- a period of fourteen years! Suits alleging racial discrimination in bar admission have been filed in Alabama, Virginia, South

Carolina, Ohio, California, Georgia and Maryland. Some of these suits alleged that bar examiners have been able to identify applicants by race in grading tests, because applicants are required to send in their photograph, a description of their educational background and character. In addition, part of the 247

action in the impending lawsuits is to obtain rights to obtain the law examinations as evidence of discrimination. Most are destroyed after grading. Thiswaythere has been no evidence for blacks to use in challenging the decision.

The determinations of bar examiners are finally under scrutiny. It is unconceivable that there are so many black law students who have failed to pass the bar exam (in proportion to whites) without racial discrimination being a factor in these failures. FOOTNOTES

1Jerome H. Skolnick, et al., Crisis in American Institutions. (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, (19727, pp. 387-88.

2Ibid.

3John H. McNamara, "Uncertainties in Police Work: 'The Relevance of Police Recruits' Background and Training," in Ibid.; and Niederhoffer, Behind the Shield: The Police in Urban Society, in Ibid., pp. 388-89.

4Henry Allen Bullock, "Significance of the Racial Factor in the Assessment of Prison Sentences," The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, Vol. 52, No. 4 (November-December, 1961), pp. 411-17.

5The Negro Yearbook, (Chic -,go: Johnson Publishing Company, (1966)).

6Henry Allen Bullock, "The Houston Murder Problem: Its Nature, Apparent Causes and Probable Cures," A Report Prepared for the Mayor's Office, City of Houston, June, 1961.

7lbid.

8T. C. Sinclair, "Law and Order Reconsidered," in The Criminal Justice System in Texas, A Report Prepared for the Texas Urban Development Commission, 1971. CHAPTER 7

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: MINORITY BUSINESSES

A profile of the economic characteristics, attitudes, and problems of minority business entrepreneurs in Houston was compiled by the Small Business Development Center of Texas Southern 1 University. Without comment, the entire data obtained from the survey are given in this section in slightly abbreviated form.

Information on the major types of business activities, by types of retail and service firms, and, by the racial background of the owners is included.

As a matter of summary, of the six hundred eighty-six (686) firms surveyed, forty-seven, or 6.9 percent, of the firms had gone out of business, with less than three percent relocating outside of the Model Neighborhood Area. Approximately 7 percent of the business enterprises had failed between the time of their identifi- cation in late March and the time of survey contact in July, 1972.

It should be noted that this should not be construed as meaning that firms in Model Neighborhood Areas are failing since no efforts were made to determine the number of new firms entering the area.

However, figures do indicate that there is a large turnover in businesses in Model Neighborhood Areas as well as in other areas of the

lAppreciation is expressed to Dr. L. B. Bickman, Dr. L. Sardana and members of the Small Business Development Center for permission to use a portion of the materials included in the survey. The complete report and deck cards giving the survey results by four digit SIC codes are available from the Small Business Development Center in Texas Southern University.

249 250

city where small business enterpreneurs have chosen to locate.

This fact is further amplified when the failures are combined with those for firms which relocated elsewhere -- outside c'f the Model Neighborhood Area.The combined figures, according to the report released by the Small Business Development Center, indicate an approximate decrease of 9.2 percent in the number of firms operating within the MNA during the period from March through July, offset, "as mentioned" by the unknown number of new ventures started and the relocations into the MNA during the same period.

The data included in this section provide some insight into the problems which confront businesses located in the general survey area. Economic characteristics are deliberately emphasized, and some attitudes expressed by owners of business in Model Neigh- borhood Areas have also been condensed and included in tabular form. Table 109 Em lo ment Data for Small Business Establishments in Black ---Tornr-rosmrnAmericanMexican- Houston White Other Base u er o u er o ac mpirms oyees . . . 167 16 97 DkJNr 91 7-94-6None1-3 24.662.3 8.4 .6 12.587.5 43.341.2 2.15.2 11.023.142.9 6.6 2016-19 or13-1510-12 more 1.21.8 .6 ____ 2.11.0 - - -- 5.51.1 Number of Mexican-American Employees No answer 4 5.2 1.18.8 4-61-3None -98.2 - -- 1.8 75.012.5 6.3 19.670.1 4.1 24.211.050.5 13-1510-127-9 ------6.3 2.11.0 5.52.21.1 No2016-19 answeror more -----____ ------1.0 3.3 Number of White Employees 1-3None . . . 98.2 1.2 93.8 6.3 60.8- - 10.3- - 23.125.3 2.2 4-67-9 - - -- .6 MO liffie me 12.4 5.2 12 ..).6 1 10-12 ---- .m1 3.1 11.0 No2016-1913-15 oranswer more ------Mat. -- 3.11.04.1 - -16.5 -- 2.23.3 ShareBase of total classifie Number of Employees as . . . 613 35 1365 2207 OtherMexican-AmericanBlackWhite 98.0 1.3 .2.5 -91.4 - - - 5.72.9 27.361.2 ).5 12.235.851.3 .7 Information on Location of Business Establishments Table 110 Base Number of firms) Black 167 American exi can - 16 White 97 Dk Nr t er 91 Has oeen in business at present location Less1-2 thanyears one year . . 14.4 4.2 25.0 emit NW We. OW 9.3 22.0 3.3 15-1910-145-93-4 years years 11.413.227.513.8 18.831.312.5 17.513.410.3 9.3 20.912.113.2 8.8 *20-29 No30* *oranswer years* moreAverage years years this location 10.1712.6 3.0 12.5 8.38 16.6718.619.6 2.1 10.92 5.59.94.4 Total years in business 1-2Less years than one . . . 8.43.6 i2.r 3.1 12.1 1.1 15-1910-145-93-4 years years 13.215.020.411.4 25.031.3 6.3 11.315.5 6.28.2 12.111.0 7.77.7 * No3020-29* *oranswer * moreyearsAverage years years in business 13.3218.6 6.63.0 10.2712.5 6.3 22.0627.825.8 2.1 20.1822.016.5 9.9 Number of previous locations None . . . 63.526.3 68.8 27.859.2 41.839.6 FiveFourThreeTwoOne or more 6.0 .6 12.518.8 7.21.0 8.8 Satisfaction with present location Wouldn'tNo answer move under any circumstances . . . 49.7 3.6 62.5- - - - *58.8 4.1 52.7 9.9 Might consider moving 25.7 12.5 28.9 19.6 OtherAmWouldNo definitely answers answersmove if couldconsidering afford ato move 18.0 1.81.23.6 -18.7 - - - 6.3 4.12.15.11.0 11.0 4.47.7 Table 111 Marketing Area and Consumer Problems Black AmericanMexican- Other tonsiBase der firm s market area to Number of firms e. . 167 16 91 LargerSmallerAboveNo answer averagecompared compared to to other other firms firms 29.314.455.1 1.2 ----37.556.3 6.2 28.954.614.4 2.1 15.461.519.8 3.3 Base umEered l a . . 1 14 18 Market area is larger Because. WellMarket established/Known area beyond neighborhood 16.720.8 ml 21.435.7 22.233.3 GoodEffective assets(Stock/Plant/Equipment)product/Servicelocation personnel 16.7 8.38.3 100.0 ---- 14.3 7.17.1 22.211.1 NoAllBusiness answer other trendsanswers good 20.8 4.2 110mm. IMO Mb 21.4 11.1 5.6 Market area is smaller because. . 9 7a7e-FrirreT=7nal New/UnknownLimitedPoorInadequate location area/Low capital/Equipment/Stock economic clintele 16.310.214.3 8.2 66.716.7 17.921.425.0 21.414.328.621.4 BusinessPersonalPersonnel trend - problemsHealth/Age/Laziness bad 4.18.2 MI *0 ON OW 10.7 3.6 7.1 NoAll answer other answers 10.228.6 33.3 alI MO 17.9 7.1 14.3 7.1 Table 112 ase vun.er o Communities Served bi rnts Small Businesses in Houston Accordin Black AmeriMexi can- can OWNER OFto BUSINESS Race of Owner White Other Dk/NI r GeograPhi cal Tocati ons HeightsCitywideThirdFifth Ward Ward & North Houston 53.313.811.4 4.2 18.812.5 6.3 13.424.721.6 6.2 31.918.7 1.19.9 Southpark/CrestmontSunrwsiFourthStateRiverside /National de/FosterWard 17.412.615.0 5.41.8 12.5 Vibe. Ma 9.34.17.2 18.7 2.21.14.4 AcresAreaSecondNear 6Southwest Homes Ward & Al dine 6.02.41.8 12.537.5 6 . 3 6.24.11,0 2.21.13.34.4 DowntownDenverRyon'sAreaSp ri n 7 gb HarborAddition ran ch /Memo ri al /Katy Freeway 1.23.01.8 12.5 2.11.03.14.1 2.21.1 NoAllFarMiddleKas answer otherSouthwest hme Southwest answersre Gardens 7.21.82.4 .6 12.5 11.3 6.21.0 2.27.71.1 Principal_Competitors_o_ Businesses Pccording_to Race of Owner Table 113 Base 116-..1.1.1., /Or.. Black AmericanMexican- aqt1775P-SMINES5to White 97 Other (Nurber of Principal Competitors TwcOneNone 27.519.215.0 10 31.2 2. 21.925.0 18.913.3014r_8. No_answer/Don'tThreeFiveFour or more know/Refused 20.3 9.08.4 .6 43.7 6.3 14.64.217.7 18.911.127.8 1.1 Envircinmental Table 114 Factors of Business-FT-aces Black AmericanMexi can - IN White DkOther Nr 01 Is property converted residential? NoYes 25.773.1 81.312.5 83.515.5 91.2 6.6 What is the appearance of the building? PoorFairGood 12.038.948.5 18.843.837.5 24.738.137.1 15.475.8 6.6 Has the maintenance oc the building been. PoorFairGood 37.153.3 9.0 12.550.037.5 25.835.139.2 24.269.2 4.4 What is appearance of interior of store? PoorFairGood 39.549.7 9.6 12.550.037.5 23.734.041.2 73.619.8 5.5 Educational Attainment and Business Ownershi Table 115 b Race 1972 raucaBase ...ion attainment Nu er of firms -owner Black 7 Americanolexican- 6 Whi to 97 Dk Nr t er 9 GraduatedSome8Less yrs. highthan of highschool8elementary yrs. school of school or . . . 16.218.6 5.43.6 25.037.5 6.3 33.0 9.35.2 2.23.31.1 GraduatedSomeBusiness college or college trade school 25.719.8 9.6 - - -- 14.419.6 4.1 1.11.1 NoRespondentOtherSome answer graduate does work not know owner - - -- 3.02.4 6.3 5.21.0 51.637.4 1.1 Types of Advert 3inMedi a Used by Small Business Owners Table116 Base Number. of firms Black American exi can- NNET-770111111 White Dk Nr t er Types o SignsCalendars,Yellow (Billboards,pages ink pens posters)a vertising me la use . . . 42.516.219.2 25.0 19.617.547.4 23.124.270.3 DirectPrinted mail circulars 13.2 7.2 6.3Mb mil 13.4 9.3 25.319.8 TradingRadioMajorSuburban newspapers stamps or coupons newspapers 12.011.412.010.8 12.5 6.36.3 10.3 8.21.03.1 22.013.2 4.4 NoneOtherTelevision ofanswers above 21.612.6 1.8 43.8 MI ow 29.912.4 1.0 18.713.217.6 Table 115 Educational Attainment and Business Ownershi Black AmericanMexican- b Race 1972 to White Dk/NrOther rducaBase ion attainment ofowner Nu Less than 8 yrs. of school er o firms . . 5.4 25.0 6 5.2 1.1 9 BusinessGraduatedSome8 yrs. high of orschoolhigh elementarytrade school school 19.816.218.6 3.6 25.037.5 6.3 33.0 9.34.1 2.21.13.3 SomeSomeGraduated college graduate college work 25.7 2.49.63.0 fmOUlpUm,1.1=11.Y 14.419.6 1.0 1.1 NoRespondentOther answer does not know owner .1II .111 6.3 NO mir NO .0 5.2 51.637.4 =1....MMMMMI....l.....IO.... rnc.r) es of Advertisin Media Used b Table116 Black Small Business Owners AmericanMexican- White DkOther Nr TypesBase of a vertising me la use . Number. of firms . PrintedSignsYellowCalendars, (Billboards, pagescirculars ink pens posters) 19.242.513.216.2 25.025.0 6.3 19.617.547.4 9.3 23.124.270.319.8 MajorDirectRadioSuburban newspapersmail newspapers 11.412.010.8 7.2 6.3 10.313.4 8.23.1 22.025.313.2 TradingNoneOtherTelevision of answersstamps above or coupons 21.612.012.6 1.8 43.812.5 29,912.4 1.0 17.618.713.2 4.4 Table 117 Residential Data and Ownership__ --7(1can- TWNER0T-BUSINESS er Base eographical locations Nurber of Thirdfirm) Ward Black40.2 16f American 18.7 16 White 4.3 /7 Dk/Nr 3.2 9T HeightsSunnyside/Foster & North Houston 10.9 1.6 18.7 6,2 21.5 2,1 MI abb1.1 Springbranch/Memorial/KatySouthpark/Crestmont Freeway 9.8 MOmIlm.mUOMMIMOm. 2.22.1 .bb MN 1M 1M MiddleRiverside Southwest 6.51.1 MOMIMb.. 7.51.1 1.1 Mb Mb /a 3.3 NearFifth Southwest Ward 3.8 .6 6.2 1.11.17.5 1.1 WM Mb DenverSecond Ward..Harbor 2.23.3 .5 25.0.11.1.1/1 Mt 1.1 ..MOO. OEM/ MB 1M AcresRyon'sKashmere Homes Addition Gardens & Aldine 1.1 .5 6.3 3.2 .MIMMISEM Pasadena/CityFourthFar Southwest Ward of South Houston .5' Mb./ MI.0 6.3 2.24.31.1 AllSettegast/ScenicNo otheranswer answers Woods 3.33.8 .5 6.3 17.2 90.2MD rm. M. /11 PERCENTAGE OF FIRMS BY TYPE OF BUSINESS WITH SPECIFIED PERCENTAGE OF CUSTOMERS RESIDING WITHIN TEN BLOCKS OF THE FIRM Table UP Manufac-turing saleWhole- Type of Business Retail Service Other * ShareBase (Number of Sales of toFirms) Cus- 28 26 180 112 25 10tomers Blocks Living of Firm.... Within None 51.7 53.8 3.4 10.7 24.0 20-2911-191-10 PercentPercent 31.0 - 34.6 3.8 - 15.1 9.52.2 26.8 8.93.6 28.0 8.0 - 50-5940-4930-39 Percent - - 11.7 3.93.42.8 1.88.03.64.4 4.0 - 90-9980-8970-7960-69 Percent - - 10.6 8.4 4.52.73.6 4.08.0 - NoAl1--100 Answer/Don't Percent Know 17.3 3.9 12.8 7.8 15.2 6.2 16.0 **AverageTOTAL PercentageReported** 100.0 1.00 100.0 5.80 50.03100.0 31.98100.0 18.71100.0 PERCENTAGE OF CERTAIN RETAIL AND SERVICE FIRMS WITH SPECIFIED PERCENTAGE OF CUSTOMERS RESIDING WITHIN TEN BLOCKS OF THE FIRM Table 119 Gas Sta- tion PlacesEating DrinkPlaces StoresLiquor ShopsBeauty ShopsBarber AutoRepair RepairMisc. Base (Number of Firms) 18 28 25 13 22 16 17 10 ToShare10Living Customers Blocks of WithinSales of Firm 11-191-10 Percent Percent None 22.2 5.5 7.1 4.08.0 - 13.6 4.5 43.7 - 23.5 5.9 30.0 - ;-.:1t71lO 50-5940-493020-29 -39 PercentPercent 16.7 5.65.5 - 21.4 7.1 16.012.0 4.04.0 23.0 7.7 - 13.6 4.69.1 6.36.2 11.7 5.9 10.0 - 90-9980-897060-69 -79 PercentPercent 11.116.7 10.721.4 7.2 - 4.08.0 15.4 7.7 4.6 - 6.3 5.9 - NoAll--100 Answer/Don't Percent Know 5.6 17.9 7.2 16.0 15.4 7.7 22.7 4.6 12.5 6.3 5.9 30.0 - **Average PercentageReported** TOTAL 47.82100.0 55.09100.0 53.14100.0 70.67100.0 34.41100.0 32.14100.0 26.56100.0 100.0 6.29 LENGTH OF TIME AT PRESENT LOCATION AND LENGTH OF LIFE BY TYPE OF Table 120 BUSINESS Total Manufac- Whole-AND BY ETHNIC BACKGROUNDS OF OWNER Type of Business * * Mex. Owner of Business----* Other ofBase Firms) (Number 371 turing 28 sale 26 Retail 180 Service 112 Other 25 Black 167 Amer. 16 White 97 Dk/Nr 91 LessatHas Present ThanBeen 1in Location Business Y 2.7 3.8 4.4 .9 4.2 3.3 3-410-145-91-2 Years Years Years 14.322.412.715.4 14.317.9 3.6 26.911.523.1 22.213.918.9 26.8 9.88.0 20.016.012.0 27.513.814.4 31.312.525.0 13.410.3 9.3 20.913.222.0 3020-2915-19 or YearsMore Years 12.4 8.69.7 39.310.7 3.6 11.5 7.7 12.2 6.17.8 15.218.8 3.6 12.020.0 8.0 12.611.413.2 3.0 12.518.8 - 18.619.617.5 9.3 12.1 9.94.48.8 **AverageNo Answer Years ThisTOTAL Location** 11.96100.0 1.9 23.64100.0 - 11.42100.0 - 10.07100.0 2.2 12.08100.0 1.8 12.29100.0 4.0 10.17100.0 100.0 8.38 16.67100.0 2.1 10.92100.0 5.5 TotalLess Yrs.Than in1 Bus. Yr 1.9 3.3 4.0 3.6 1.1 10-145-93-41-2 Years Years 15.1 8.98.1 14.310.7 7.1 11.5 3.8 14.417.810.611.1 16.1 8.02.7 12.0 8.04.0 20.411.4 8.4 25.012.5 6.3 8.26.23.1 11.012.1 7.7 3020-2915-19 or YearsMore Years 15.619.711.1 46.421.4 23.126.911.5 18.3 9.48.9 14.318.817.9 24.012.0 8.0 18.613.215.0 6.6 31.312.5 6.3 - 27.825.811.315.5 22.016.512.1 7.7 **AverageNo Answer Years TOTALin Business** 17.13100.0 4.6 100.0 33.89 20.92100.0 - 13.20100.0 6.1 16.95100.0 4.5 21.92100.0 4.0 13.32100.0 3.0 10.27100.0 6.3 22.06100.0 2.1 20.18 100.0 9.9 LENGTH OF TIME AT PRESENT LOCATION AND LENGTH OF LIFE FOR CERTAIN RETAIL AND SERVICE FIRMS Table 121 StationsGas PlacesEating PlacesDrink StoresLiquor ShopsBeauty ShopsBarber RepairAuto RepairMist. atHasofBase Firms)Present Been (Number in Location Business 18 28 25 13 22 16 17 10 1-2Less YearsThan 1 Yr. 11.1 14.3 3.6 24.0 4.0 23.1 - 4.5 - 17.6 - 20.0 5-93-410-14 YearsYears Years 11.116.7 5.6 21.421.4 16.024.0 - 15.4 7.7 31.822.713.6 37.518.8 6.3 23.511.8 20.030.0 - No3020-2915-19 orAnswer MoreYears Years Yrs. 11.116.7 5.6 14.3 3.6 - 12.0 4.0 - 23.1 7.77.7 22.7 - 31.3 6.3 - 11.817.6 - 10.020.0 - **Average Years ThisTOTAL Location** 10.56100.0 100.0 8.61 100.0 8.56 13.42100.0 100.0 9.41 11.94100.0 14.29100.0 100.0 8.90 TotalLessBusiness.... YearsThan 1in Yr. 11.1 4.0 10-145-93-41-2 Years Years 11.111.1 5.6 28.614.3 7.1 12.020.016.0 23.115.4 7.7 40.9 9.1 18.812.5 6.3 - 17.617.6 5.9 20.030.0 - , 11.1 No3020-2915-19 orAnswer MoreYears Yrs. 22.211.1 5.6 17.9 3.6 16.0 4.08.0 15.415.4 7.7 27.3 4.5 43.812.5 6.3 - 29.411.8 5.9 10.020.0 - **Average Years TOTALIn Busiress** 10.29100.0 10.79100.0 10.12100.0 15.25100.0 14.52100.0 16.88100.0 18.25100.0 13.10100.0 OWNERSHIP AND MONTHLY RENTALS BY TYPE OF BUSINESS AND ETHNIC BACKGROUND OF OWNER Table 122 Total Manufac-*turing Whole-Sale Type of Business Retail Service Other * Black* Owner of Amer.Mex.Business White OtherDk/Nr * ofMonthlyBase Firms)Building... (Number Rental 371 28 26 180 112 25 167 16 97 91 LessNone--Own Than Bldg.$25 36.8 .3 61.5 48.0 29.2 37.9 .9 50.0 32.5. .6 25.0 39.3 44.3 $75$50$25-$49 -$99-$74 6.36.02.2 3.8 - 4.0 - 2.83.9 12.6 2.7 12.5 - 9.79.64.2 12.5 6.2 - 5.34.21.0 1.1 - $150-$174$124-$149$100-$124 5.57.49.1 3.83.8 - 4.0 - 12.911.2 6.8 5.43.69.0 .9 4.1 - 13.3 6.69.1 25.0 - 1.16.43.2 1.14.53.42.3 $400-$499$300-$399$200-$299$175-$199 3.02.85.51.9 3.93.9 16.0 4.04.0 3.42.38.4 2.71.8 - 4.2 - 2.44.23.0 .6 - 3.26.49.6 4.63.4 No$1,000$500-$999 Answer or More 11.5 1.1 .6 15.4 - 12.0 4.0 11.8 1.1 - 9.0 .9 - 16.7 8.3 - 4.2 - 6.3 - - 12.8 1.1 - 25.0 3.42.3 **Average MonthlyTOTALRent Reported** 220.11 100.0 219.38 100.0 369.73 100.0 207.02 100.0 124.82 100.0 828.89 100.0 128.32 100.0 100.00 100.0 211.73 100.0 601.90 100.0 OWNERSHIP AND MONTHLY RENTALS FOR CERTAIN RETAIL AND SERVICE FIRMS Table 123 StationsGas PlacesEating PlacesDrink StoresLiquor ShopsBeauty ShopsBarber RepairAuto Misc.Repair ofBase Firms) (Number 18 28 25 13 .22 16 17 10 None--OwnofMonthly Building.... Rental . Building. 33.3 35.7 12.5 30.7 23.8 18.7 35.3 50.0 .$25-$49'Less Than$75-$99$50 -$74$25 - 7.1 - 4.24.1 - 15.4 7.7 -- 23.819.0 4.89.5 25.0 - 5.9 - 30.0 - $150-$174$124-$149$100-$124 16.7 5.5 - 10.7 7.1 12.529.2 15.4 7.7 - 9.54.8 - 12.5 6.2 - 11.7 5.9 10.010.0 $400-$499$300$200-$299$175-$199 -$399 5.6 7.23.67.1 4.2 - - - 6.3 -- 11.7 No$1,000$500-$999 Answer or More 27.8 -- 3.67.2 - 12.5 7.7 - 4.8 - 6.3 -- 11.8 5.9 - - **Average Monthly RentTOTAL Reported** 172.43100.0 408.50 100.0 146.32 100.0 100.00 100.0 101.69 100.0 92.58100.0 232.22 100.0 85.00100.0 CHAPTER 8

THE PROGRESS OF CIVIL RIGHTS

. In brief, a comparative thread between black, white, and brown citizens has colored the presentation of data in this document. We have indexed neatly into paragraphs and statistical tables a miscellany of facts which convey details on the problems and accomplishments of minority citizens in Houston and parts of Harris County. It should be emphasized that limited data ha' ;e been included on the Mexican-

American population. This limitation is due to a lack of available information or it is due to the fact that statistics on brown citizens were combined with those of other races, thus making a clear delineation of the data difficult, if not impossible, to discern.

Previous statements and information provide adequate accounts of inequities which still exist in areas of housing, education, employment, income, and related areas. These gaps exist despite the crescendo of legal victories against discriminatory practices. In a rational sense, the reason is that discrimination, caused by more than three centuries of abuse, segregation, and bias, will not auto-. matically disappear. Another view is that evasions, non-compliance, and outright acts of defiance are symptoms of problems which just do not seem to go away. Both viewpoints or positions have validity. To be sure,

264 265

there is need for deliberate and continuous planning and commitment

if we are to minimize and eventually resolve the problems with which

minority groups are faced.

There is evidence to suggest that some progress has been made

in the direction of achieving the goals of equal opportunity for

minority group citizens in Houston. The extent of this progress has

not been adequately assessed. The remaining portion of this report

reviews some of the events which sparked the movement outlawing

discrimination in American society and relates the accomplishments

made in Houston during the past decades.

CIVIL RIGHTS LEGISLATION

A casual review of civil rights activities in this country

points toward two fundamental factors as the main explanations for

the progress made to date. First, there was a commitment to equal

justice and equal opportunity by the national administrations. This

commitment was characterized by a strong and vigorous drive for the

passage of legislation which would outlaw segregation and discrimination

in almost every aspect of American society. The other factor related

to the nature and kind of leadership during the critical years follow-

ing the 1954 Court decree. During the Kennedy-Johnson years, there was a national posture which demonstrated a legal and moral dedication

to end discrimination in the United States. These two factors, coupled 266

with the awareness and mood of the public concerning inequality, provided the necessary impetus for movement away from the dual structure into a more open society.

The late President Lyndon B. Johnson lamented about human rights and equal justice for all Americans in his book, Liz. Hope for

America (New York: Random House, 1964). In discussing the Civil

Rights Act, he wrote: 'The Civil Rights Act is a challenge to men of goodwill to transform the commands of our land into the customs of our land." Subsequent statements by President Johnson shed greater light on the challenge of justice in this country. The rationale which directed the passage of civil rights legislation during the Kennedy-Johnson years is set forth in numerous statements made during the course of these administrations. Johnson explains,

The purpose of the law is simple. It does not restrict the freedom of any American so long as he respects the rights of others. It does not give special treatment to any citizen. It does say that those who are equal before God shall also be equal in the polling booths, in the classrooms, in the factories, and in hotels, restaurants, movie theaters,

and other places that provide service to the public . . .

Explaining further, he states,

Its purpose is not to punish . . . not to divide, but to end divisions -- divisions which have lasted too long. Its purpose is national not regional. Its purpose is to promote a more abiding commitment to freedom, a more constant pursuit of justice, and a deeper respect for human dignity. 267

Americans shared mixed feelings of pride and anxiety about the social changes which occurred as a result of the legal abolish- ment of segregation. Part of the anxiety which resulted stemmed

from the gap between the ideological foundation of democracy and actual practices in the society. Today, we find that some anxieties

and negative attitudes are still prevalent, however, some impressive gains have been made. The great majority of black Americans are still faced with chronic unemployment, inadequate health care, insufficient incomes, and low educational levels. Most of these inequities have been underscored in the main body of this document.

There is little cause to repeat the fact that the tidal wave of unequal opportunity has not been completely arrested.

There is evidence to suggest that some progress has been made

in achieving the goal of equal opportunity for minority group citizens

in Houston. This progress has favored the middle class rather than

those who were more severely affected and alienated from the main currents of the society. It is a fact which must seriously be ponder- ed. In the next several pages, we will review some of the progress made in Houston to enhance the achievements of minority members of the population. Where do we stand as a city today? How far have we come during the years since the initial Brown decision in 1954? How do we

think things are being handled in relation to dealing with inequities and minority grievances in Houston?What, objectively, is the state of

race relations in this city? What is the more logical course to pursue 268

in the coming years? These are some important questions -- they are queries to which we sought some of the answers in our conversations with community influentials and directors of organizations in the. City.

As much as possible, statistical data were collected to show some trends in particular areas of interest.

Economically, blacks and browns have made gains in employment and occupational categories. Though not in record numbers, they are employed in positions with banks, large corporations, .at predominantly white colleges and universities (in faculty and non-faculty positions); they are employed in grocery stores as managers and cashiers; and they are employed in positions with the City of Houston. Entry into non- traditional occupational positions in Houston has been characterized primarily by persons comprising what is now referred to as "the rising middle class." For the most part, college graduates -- many of whom were participants in the Sit-In demonstrations of the 1960's -- are the beneficiaries of the struggle for equal.opportunity in the South and other parts of the country. The predominantly black college, despite its disadvantaged position in the total educational structure, relentlessly prepared these students to take advantage of the opportunities as they became available. Graduates of these institutions comprise the bulk of those persons in Houston classified as middle class. This is the same group to which Wattenberg and Scammon referred in the April issue of Commentary.

Speaking of black gains, Wattenberg and Scammon noted that revolutionary progress has been made by black Americans and indicated that many have moved into the middle class. The most unfortunate part of the 269

study and its findings was a failure on the part of the authors to make

a distinction in terms of class. Vernon Jordan, Jr., director of the

National Urban League, commented on some obvious errors in the study.

A major criticism was the implication of a "cynical conspiracy among

black leaders to deliberately ignore reality as a part of a dishonest

strategy to make problems of black Americans seem worse than they

really are," says Jordan.' The literature on socio-economic progress for minority groups shows that it is an indisputable fact that blacks have

made gains and so have'whites, and the net result has been that while

black income -- in an overall sense -- has gone up, white income has

also gone up. The actual dollar gap between the races has widened as

a result of this large white increase. This is true in the nation; it

is true in Houston.

The Wattenberg-Scammon article also gives the impression that enough

blacks have moved into the middle class and that there is a majority at

this level. One of the variables questioned in the report is the apparently

very loose operational definition used to specify "middle class."

If money is used as a determinant of middle class, then the definition is,

at best, a truly plastic one. It has long been a fact that plumbers often make more money than school teachers and other white collar workers when measured on an annual scale. By income level alone, these individuals would not be considered middle class.

In Houston, we have found a large proportion of blacks receiving

incomes proportionate with middle class status, and many of these same

individuals have changed in status during the last decade -- if one uses 270

-such variables as income, education, and occupation as determinants

of socio-economic status. This is progress in employment and occu-

pation.

What is not progress, however, is the disastrous impact of unem-

ployment on the lives of many individuals trapped in the ghettos of

the central city. In some neighborhoods, the rate of unemployment

is estimated to be as high as 15 percent. What is even less progress

is the fact that black and brown families, of whatever income level,

pay more on the average for a given standard of housing than do whites.

On the average, they are paid less for their services and they usually

have more mouths to feed on their incomes.

EMPLOYMENT WITH THE CITY OF HOUSTON

The employment patterns of blacks in city positions indicate a

disproportionate number in lower echelon jobs. In April, 1973, a count

of all employees with the City shows the largest number of blacks to

be employed in the Solid Waste Department, Model City Health and Parks

Divisions; in Public Works, including such areas as garbage, sewage,

and street repairs. All employees of Refuse E.E.A. are black; and

whites comprise all workers in Public Works-Water C.I.W.A., according

to the April report on employment with the City. 271

Blacks are underrepresented in Fire Protection and Fire Suppression but overrepresented in garbage, sewage, and solid waste positions. Black males hold more positions with the City of Houston than black females.

There is also some unevenness in the composition of employees with Model

Cities components. There is a substantial number of blacks working with this program. When these employees are added to the total of black employees in Solid Waste, Public Works (garbage and refuse), and various other maintenance categories, a distorted picture of equal employment emerges.

The total percentage representation for minority groups in city employment leads one to assume that an equitable distribution means equal opportunity with the City. This is not really the case. The Model Cities program has an almost even distribution of employees by race, with 52 percent black and about 48 percent white. The Mexican-American employees were not delineated in the report which we received. This leads one to assume that a portion of the white percentage is representative of the brown segment of the population.

The number of black employees with the City of Houston totaled 2,805 in April, 1973. Of this total, 2,505 worked in such divisions as garbage, sewage, street repairs, solid waste, and Model Cities components. In fact,

29 percent of the total number of black employees may be found in the

Model City and Solid Waste divisions; an additional 30 percent are employed with Public Works, including such areas as garbage, sewage,and street repairs.

If you add these percentages to those involving other lower echelon jobs 272

such as Refuse and Prison Farm employees, there is little change to

be observed in black employment patterns for the City. The per-

centage of blacks in administrative and/or clerical positions (mostly white collar occupations) is indeed low. Approximately 90 percent

of all blacks employed with the city can be found in lower paying jobs,

or they are working in Model Cities component projects. This latter

city department is a federally-funded project, and is subject to guide-

lines which stipulate compliance with the Equal Opportunity Act. An

equal employment effort by the City is not clearly visible when the

positions held are examined in terms of where blacks fall on the occu-

pational scale with the City. At best, minority group involvement in

employment with the City is token.

The internal analysis of city employment, i.e., position held versus

qualifications and pay, reveals a different trend than that for the total

percentage distribution as a whole. For instance, the April, 1973, employment figures show 12,269 employees with the City. Of this number, 7,706 or

62.8 per cent are white males; 1,736 or 14.1 percent are white females,

compared to 2,408 (19.6%) black males; and 397, or less than four percent

black females. Total white representation in city employment exceeds

75 percent; and total black representation approximates 23 precent, with over

half of the positions held by blacks in maintenance -- mostly unskilled

positions save Model Cities components. Another observation relevant to

the data is that blacks are more frequently found employed in programs

receiving some federal assistance and the probability of their presence 273

increases with the program focus, namely, that they work with programs whose budgetary allocations are for specific improvements in disadvantaged areas. Even where this practice is obvious, few consultant positions are contracted to competent black educators from predominantly black institutions. It is alleged that any black involvement is inherent in limited knowledge by whites about the communities, and some blacks and browns are used so that researchers can move in the areas with greater ease for data collection. One distinguished black sociologist, in discussing the issue, stated that

. . the prevailing action embraces the contention that only whites are qualified to deal with areas of research in defining the needs of the black community. I happen to disagree with this action, if this is the case. Black and brown talent is available in this city and in other parts of Texas and the nation. These individuals are just as competent or more competent to understand the needs of the minority groups. Yet, contracts for research and consultation are more often awarded white professors at predominantly white institutions and agencies.

Similar reactions were given by several community influentials interviewed on the subjects of employment and contractual arrangements for consultant work with the City.

Tables 124 and 125 show a frequency and percentage distribution of employees for the City of Houston by race, as of April,

1973. A Numerical and-Percentage Distribution of Employees for the City of Table 124 Houston Total By Race and Sex (April, 1973) White Male White Female %, Black Male Black Female Total Mayor 25 No. 9 36.0 % No. 12 48.0 No. 2 %8.0 No. 12 3.0% Black 4 CouncilMayor's Manpower 17 8 47 41.250.0 83 47.137.5 10 5.90 1 12.5 5.9 21 ComptrollersMayor'sPlanned ModelVariation City Division 3611 6 14 06 38.954.5 0 20 4 55.666.736.4 10 16.7 2.80 1 16.7 2.89.1 2 CityModel Planning SecretaryCity 691838 5 2218 0 57.926.1 0 181315 2 100.0 81.734.2 028 11.6 05.3 28 01 40.6 02.6 36 03 MunicipalCivil DefenseService Courts 2227 1811 3 81.340.760.0 14 3 13.651.940.0 00 00 210 4.57.40 120 FireMunicipalFire Prevention Adm. Courts Administration Maintenance 166118 86 127 8059 93.076.550.0 3250 0 42.419.3 0 627 7.04.21.7 70 05.9 679 HealthDataFire Processing SuppressionModelDepartment City 1,905 460119 19 1,820 219 46 8 42.147.638.795.5 136 63 4 21.129.652.9 5385 41 21.111.5 0.84.5 52 39 15.811.3 0 105 8510 7 Health Model City FamilyVaccination Planning Assistant '20 295326 4813 30.810.3 7.55 2216 41 41.561.520.0 3.4 25 402 10.086.2 7.50 2313 20 18.343.465.0 7.7 252715 2 Health AirMaternaity, Pollution Infant Care 4593 9 3416 2 75.617.2 1056 1 22.260.2 504 04.3 17 1 11.1 2.2 21 61 LegalHealth Department DentalRodent Program 6134 3810 62.329.422.2 22 3 36.111.1 818 17 0 50.055.6 0 14 11.8 01.6 21 1 Park RecreationGolfDepartmentAdministration Division Park Division 234321 5861 111216 4642 79.341.467.368.9 5816 25 24.826.2 3.41.6 103596 3 17.215.029.9 4.9 30 04 22.212.8 01.2 100 6510 3 PolicePark ZooModel Adm.Law Division CityEnforcement 2,117 558 64 9 2,000 196 45 1 94.535.110.311.1 265 4915 0 47.523.4 2.30 4960 36 2.866.7 4.78.8 48 812 8.600.41.6 6897 48 Prison Farm Total 19 No. White Male 19TA-iLL: 100.0 % 124 (Con't) No.White 0 Female Black Male 0% No. 0 % 0 No.Black Female 0 % 0 TotalBlack 0 PublicOffice WorksServiceBuilding Adm. Division 106 2554 51251118 44.033.348.1 351514 0 56.064.814.2 0 26 401 24.5 01.9 14 0 13.2 00 40 401 Public Works -Engineer ElectricalBridge Division 234102 29 219 87 93.685.386.2 11- 4 4.73.9 11 2 10.813.8 0.9 0 0 11 L., PublicPublic Works Works Municipal StreetSewer DivisionRepair Garbage 453602140 284271 84 47.259.860.0 693 0.56.41.3 315176 47 5 33.652.338.9 30 00 315176 47 8 Public Works ModelBuilding City Inspection 202 3822 160 49 23.779.218.2 2834 2 73.716.8 9.1 13 0 59.1 02.5 13 13.6 2.61.5 16 1 LandRealPurchasing Acquisition Estate 3220 1915 75.059.4 12 2., 37.510.0 03 15.0 0 10 03.1 131 TrafficReal Estate Signaland Transportation Model Division City 9185 9 8376 5 91.289.455.6 9073 33.3 08.2 7821 11.1 8.82.4 0 0 782 TaxTreasury Department Adm. 178 2024 1180 8 55.044.933.3 92 5 25.051.737.5 32 29.215.0 1.1 14 5.02.2 46 o'--I PublicSolidUtilities WasteWorks Gas DepartmentWater Division C.I.W.A.Adm. 756 4 43 42 100.0 50.0 5.7 013 25.0 00.4 709 0 93.8 0 01 25.0 00.1 710 01 Public Works WaterCustomer MaintenanceProduct Service 442260144 170 309195 38.566.035.0 113 1713 5 43.5 2.93.5 256 2744 0 30.657.910.4 0 039 00.73.5 259 4436 0 AviationAviationPublic WorksHobby Adm SanWaterAirport Jacinto Engineer Water 49226147 2841 7 67.263.857.131.8 15 5 10.268.236.2 8.2 1415 0 28.624.6 0 20 4.10 1615 0 ModelLi5rar3CivicAviation Cities Center Houston Library International Services 377218305 14 144207 57 0 15.165.667.9 0 235 7012 4 28.662.323.0 5.5 405325 2 14.310.624.3 8.2 4510 83 57.111.9 4.61.0 85281063 ParksCivilRefuse E.E.A. ServiceE.P.A. Pub. Emp. 3875 5 031 20.0 4.00 01 20.0 0 6338 1 100.0 84.020.0 092 40.012.0 0 7238 3 .LibraryComprehensive E.E.A. Planning Division TOTAL 12,269 14 2 7,706" 10 62.850.0 0 1,736 0 14.1 0 2,408 03 19.621.4 0 397 11 1 50.078.6 3.2 2,805 14 1 276

TABLE 125 A NUMERICAL AND PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF EMPLOYEES FOR THE CITY OF HOUSTON BY RACE (APRIL, 1973)

BLACKS EOUTIED DEPARTMENT Total for: Less than 50% or 25% More (percent) (percent)

Mayor 16.0 Mayor's Manpower 12.5 Council 11.8 Planned Variation Division 9.1 Mayor's Model City Controller's 5.6 Model City 52.2 City Planning 7.9 City Secretary Civil Defense Civil Service 7.4 Municipal Courts. 4.5 Municipal Courts 7.6 Administration Fire Adm Maintenance 4.2 Fire Prevention 7.0 Fire Suppression 4.5 Data Processing 8.4 Health Department 22.8 Health Model City Health Model City 86.2 Health Model City 75.0 Health Vaccination Ass. 7.7 Health, Family Planning 50.9 Health Maternity Infant Care 22.6 Health Air Pollution 2.2 Health Dental Program 66.7 Health Rodent 61.8 Legal Department 1.6 Park Admin. 4.9 Park Dept., Park Division Pa-% Recreation Park Golf Division 17.2 Park Model City 88.9 Park-Zoo Division 6.3 Police Admin. 17.4 Police Law Enforcement 3.2 Prison Farm Office Building Division Public Service 1.9 Public Works Admin. Public Works Bridge Division 13.8 Public Work7, Electrical 10.8 Public Works Engineer Division 0.9 277

TABLE 125(Con ' t)

BLACKSEMPLOYED DEPARTMENT Total for: Less than 50% or 25% More percent percent

Public Works Municipal Garbage Public Works Sewer Division Public. Works Street Repair 52.3 Public Works Building Inspection 4.0 Public Works Model City 72.7 Purchasing 2.6 Real Estate 15.0 Land Acquisition 3.1 Real Estate Model City 11.1 Traffic & Transportation 2.8 Traffic Signal Division 8.8 Treasury Administration Tax Department 3.3 Utilities Gas Div. 20.0 Solid 4astn DO,z.rtment 93.9 Public Works Water Admin. 25.0 Public Works Water C.I.W.A. Public Works Water Product Public Works Customer Service 13.9 Public Works Water Maintenance 58.6 Puhlic Works Water Engineer. Public Works San Jacinto Water 24.6 Aviation Admin. Aviation Hobby Airport Aviation Houston IntercontinentalAirport 9.2 Civic Center Library 22.5 Model City Library Service 71.4 Refuse E.E.A. 100.0 Civil Service Pub. Emp. 60.0 Parks E.E.A. 96.0 Library E.E.A 100.0 Comprehensive Planning Div. 50.0 278

EMPLOYMENT: COMMUNICATIONS MEDIA

A survey of newspapers, radio stations, and television

stations in Houston suggests that these concerns are beginning to

absorb minority group talent into their organizational structures.

Communication with the community in general, and minority group

organizations and institutions in particular, is encouraged through

a Community Relations division. Charles Porter of KTRK-TV and

Clifton Smith of KPRC-TV serve as directors of Community Relations

for the respective stations. The local affiliates of national net-

works -- ABC, NBC, and CBS -- all have a limited number of minority

group persons employed in positions such as sales, accounting, pro-

duction, cameramen, engineering, secretarial and clerical, film,

audio, and other technical positions.

Blacks and Mexican-American individuals serve as newscasters

and reporters for local television and radio stations, and coverage is

not limited to their communities or groups. One of the more prominent

news personalities is Bob Nicholas of Channel 11 (KHOU-TV). Mr. Nicholas

has been with the local CBS affiliate for one year and a half as a news-

caster. He was formerly with the News Bureau of the National Broadcasting

Company (NBC) of Cleveland, Ohio. Napoleon Johnson, Charles Porter,

Michael Brown, Clifton Smith, Alvin Hebert, and others represent a shift

in imagery -- a shift from subserviency ( as was depicted during earlier years) to meaningful participation in the delivery and dissemination of 279

news to the general public. Through appropriate communications

channels, the media have contributed to better comnunity under-

standing of issues relating to the plight of citizens in the city.

There has been progress in radio and newspaper reporting. In

the early 1950's, widespread coverage of black-related events was

limited mostly to criminal activities. Local dailies, for instance,

gave full coverage to the blacks involved in the now famous Selby

case. Infrequent appearances of blacks on television and radio were

recorded for stations not beamed primarily to the black community.

White-owned radio stations such as KCOH and KYOK played mostly music

and carried advertisements of the "dollar down and dollar per week"

variety. These stations gave only spot coverage of news events. Other

coverage by the larger and established radio networks was limited to

visits by outstanding national personalities and events surrounding Black

History Week (formerly referred to Negro History Week). Race or human

relations programs were carried by the media as annual events.

Today, special series and documentaries on black problems and

achievements, cultural events which take place at Texas Southern Uni-

versity and area colleges, school activities, and other types of whole-

some entertainment are programmed indiscriminately by the communications media of the city and in other parts of the country. These developments,

along with the participation of blacks and browns in the production of

programs; in the coverage of news events; and in technical aspects of the media represent marks of progress in Houston and the nation. 290

Black-owned newspapers have made considerable contributions to the total social revolution in Houston.The late Carter Wesley, a noted black journalist and crusader for equal rights, left his imprint on the philosophy which guides the Houston Informer. What was most important about

Mr. Wesley's drive for equal rights was the time in which it occurred. He engaged in a form of verbal protest shaped by the conditions of life in

Houston, and his viewpoints were disseminated to the black communities throughout Texas and the nation. All class levels were exposed to his ideas and his general position regarding segregation. His black weekly newspaper was a form of collective expression. He used his editorial page to pierce the public mind and tap the public conscience about inequities in Houston, in Texas, and in the United States. His weekly newspaper was circulated to smaller communities throughout Texas. Now deceased, Mr. Wesley's journalistic thrust has been absorbed by a young, dynamic, and competent black, George

McElroy. As general manager of the Houston Informer, Mr. McElroy continues to discuss issues of vital importance to the black community. He serves as an assistant professor of Communications at the University of Houston, and writes a column for The Houston Post.

The Forward Times, another weekly newspaper, presents objective coverage of events in tile community, with particular emphasis on problems and concerns of the black population. Its managing editor, Varee Shields, Jr., strives for coverage of relevant issues and events. Through its editorial page, The Forward Times points out inconsistencies in positions taken by candidates seeking public office and elected officials, examines the local 281

occupational structure and employment picture, documents criminal

activities, and chastises (in its own way) the black and white communities for obvious flaws in their actions and reactions to

issues affecting the general public. Through editorial comments, the

paper points to contradictions in ideological issues and actual practices

concerning equal opportunities in Houston.

Black newspapers and radio stations have generally changed in

program content and program focus. Through a mutual black network,

national and international news is transmitted to low income residents

as well as middle and upper middle class black residents. There is at

least one -- perhaps more -- station beamed primarily to the Mexican-

Americans in the area. A large proportion of residents in minority

communities tune to these stations more often than other such stations

in Houston.

SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL PROGRESS

Some gains have been made in economic development through the

Minority Business Program. These gains have not been enough to change

the general status of powerlessness among minority groups in this regard.

Accomplishments have also been noted for employment, income, and occu-

pational pursuits. Despite entry into non-traditional areas of employment and occupation, unemployment and underemployment problems are

prevalent in the Houston area. The black unemployment rate for the 2 8?

Houston SMSA was 6.3 percent in 1967 as compared with 2.4 percent

for whites; it was 5.7 percent as compared with 2.6 percent for whites

in 1968; and the unemployment rate was 6.7 percent for blacks in 1969

as compared with 2.3 percent for whites. These unemployment rates and

levels represent annual averages for the periods mentioned. In the

central city, the average rate was 6.3 percent for blacks compared to

2.7 percent for whites in 1967; it was 5.8 percent for blacks as

compared to 2.5 percent for whites in 1968; and 6.6 percent for blacks

as compared to 2.1 percent for whites in 1969. An urban employment

survey during the same period July, 1968 through June, 1969 -- shows

that the unemployment rate for blacks in the original CEP (the Labor

Department's Concentrated Employment Area) was found to be 9.5 percent.2

If we examine individual census tracts on unemployment in Houston, it

is shown that some inner city areas register rates of unemployment rang-

ing from 8.8 percent to as high as 15 percent.

Equal employment opportunities exist in Houston in some federally-

funded jobs and in private industry. Discrimination in employment as a whole has not disappeared. An analysis of the practices of labor unions

in certain sectors indicates that there have been some instances of discrimination. For blacks, union construction jobs have been granted on a token basis except for the laborer and cement masons ranks. A 1971

Labor Department publication gave this account of opposition from unionized manufacturing industries: 2P3

We are getting more opposition from organized labor than from employers. The employer is out to sell products and get profits for the stockholders. He doesn't really care who produces the products. But to get maximum production, he must get all of the workers -Op work together and get along with one

another . . .3

The report further states that "labor unions are unwilling to sign

contracts that give equal treatmnt to blacks. Too often blacks

are seen as individuals posing threats to holders of certain jobs

and they'd rather see one of their own in the position that a minority

might hold..." Continuing, it is alleged that "in order for blacks

to get a chance in the line of progression, he is often asked to waive

all of his previous seniority and start at the bottom of the new line

...or they say blacks must take a test to enter thatline..."4 Ray

Marshall, director of the Negro Employment Project of the South, feels

that to the degree that these impressions are valid, unionism has not

served as a major force in the improvement of the employment status

of black workers in Houston and elsewhere.

Occupationally, blacks and browns are found at the lower end of

the scale. Breaking down major occupational groupings into detailed

classifications makes it clear that the largest gains for minorities

in Houston were in factory operatives. The next largest were increases in clerical jobs from 2.1 percent in 1966 to 6.5 percent in 1969

for black workers; and from 2.3 percent in 1966 to 4.7 percent for

Mexican-American workers in 1969. Future projections appear to indicate 2P/1

increases in professional and technical occupations, salaried management positions, craft occupations, and other protective service categories.

Whatever changes occurred in the unemployment status of minorities, especially black men, can be explained in part by shifts in their occupational distribution as well as general economic changes between 1960 and 1970. To be sure, some of the changes in occupational status are attributable to employment in federal programs initiated by the Johnson Administration's "Great Society" programs and HUD-sponsored Model Cities programs. Through such programs, minority group members with appropriate training and qualifications were able to gain the necessary experience for entry into managerial and technical positions. Such opportunities were, here- tofore, denied by virtue of practices of discrimination.

POLITICAL ASPECTS OF PROGRESS

Since the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the number of black registered voters has increased. Minority groups in Houston and throughout Texas have begun to participate more fully in the political process. This upsurge in black voter activity relates to two possible factors: the abolition of the Poll Tax in Texas and the advent of single-member legislative districts. 2P.5

Prior to 1970, there were no minority group members in

elective municipal positions in Houston, although there had been

black and brown candidates. At present there is one black City

Councilman, Judson W. Robinson, Jr. and a brown City Controller,

Leonel J. Castillo, in municipal government in Houston. In

addition, blacks serve as judges and.they are also found in other

appointive positions. City Councilman Judson W. Robinson, Jr. was

recently appointed to the Board of Directors of Texas Southern

University. He joins several other blacks on the TSU governing

board, including Municipal Judge Andrew L. Jefferson. Mack H.

Hannah, Jr., another black, serves on the Board of Regents of the

University of Houston. Dr. Robert J. Bacon, a black physician, was recently appointed to the Texas Board of Corrections. In addition

to his private practice, Bacon teaches urology at Baylor College of

Medicine, serves on the active academic staff of St. Joseph Hospital,

and practices medicine at other city hospitals. The Texas Board of

Corrections administers the Texas prison system, with over 15,000 inmates. Of the total prison population, blacks comprise 43 percent

of the group; whites, 38 percent; Mexican-Americans, 16 percent; with

the remaining three percent listed as others or unclassified. Despite

the disproportionate representation of blacks among the inmate popu-

lation, there has never been a time in Texas when more than one black

served in a governing capacity with the Texas Department of Corrections.

It is not known whether any member of the Mexican-American population 286

has ever been appointed to the Board of Corrections of the Texas

Prison System.

Education

Inequities in education still exist in Houston. Inadequate school facilities, mainly because of overcrowdedness in inner city schools, and the general conditions under which children are taught in the central city indicate differences in the quality of education offered black and brown children as opposed to white children.

Usually in these schools, classes are larger and the physical plant is older.

Colleges and universities in the area have student populations composed primarily of one race. Both Texas Southern University and the University of Houston have rather large Mexican-American enrollments.

Hospitals

Minority group members are admitted to hospitals and clinics in Houston on a non-discriminatory basis. Public hospital facilities have been opened for many years to all Houstonians. If discrimination exists in health services, it is related more to economics than to segregation. 287

Public Accommodations

There has been widespread voluntary compliance with the law regarding places of public accommodations. When the 1964 Civil

Rights Act was passed, some fears were expressed concerning the change in established customs which implied that proprietors of such places would experience serious economic loss if services were extended to blacks and other minorities. Today, this fear has subsided and public accommodations are available to all.

Housing

The condition of housing for blacks has improved since the

late 1950's and the early 1960's. Yet, a large proportion of blacks

in Houston still live in dilapidated dwellings. Discriminatory practices exist in the sale of housing, but these acts are more individual than institutional or collective. Blacks are moving into

"suburbia." Most black leaders believe that "money will get blacks

in any area if they at willing to pay exorbitant prices to live

in certain areas." However, it is not always that easy.

What appears to be the greatest concern among all classes of black Houstonians is the lack of a Fair Housing Ordinance, strong and effective Housing Code enforcement, and the absence of zoning regulations. These factors appear to contribute to segregation and neighborhood deterioration. 288

In a special report on "Understanding Fair Housing"

(Houston Chronicle, May 1, 1973), the Civil Rights Commission

said that "segregation in housing did not develop spontaneously .

Additionally, "widespread segregated neighborhoods resulted from official action of federal, state, and local governments in conjunction with the private housing industry."There is some evidence to indicate that private parties such as builders, lenders, and brokers make decisions as to where housing will be located, the class and color of its occupancy, how it will be financed, and to whom it will be sold and rented. The Civil Rights Commission further charged that "government is a key participant in these decisions. It controls most of the theoretically 'private' decisions concerning housing..."The housing industry, aided and abetted by government, must bear the primary responsibility for the legacy of segregated housing, the report further advised. It is ironic that this trend supposedly exists in the nation when voices are loudest on the busing issue. It is difficult to see any end to the dual system of education unless measures are taken to integrate housing or the alternative of busing is used to initiate desegregated classrooms.

The anti-busing advocates may find it more feasible to direct their protests to the appropriate agencies and officials, and to examine carefully the practices of the housing industry public and private.

Housing problems do have a relationship to other social issues such as education and integration. There is widespread polarization 289

between the races in Houston despite progress in areas such as public accommodations and employment. Chase Untermeyer, a Houston

Chronicle reporter, (April 8, 1973), reviewed integration efforts by clubs and organizations in Houston. Only a few of the organizations contacted were still practicing segregation. Clubs and organizations with open memberships "have either token or no black and Mexican-American members," the report said. The Kiwanis Club,

Grand Lodge of the Protective Order of Elks, components of veterans groups, such as the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Sons of the American

Revolution, and the American Legion, are organizations without mixed memberships. The Rotary Club, the Houston Bar Association, and the

Houston Medical Forum list some minority group members. The Inter- national Association of Lions Clubs recently granted a charter to the Riverside Lions Club of Houston, the first predominantly black organization of its kind ever chartered in Houston. This newly- chartered Lions subsidiary has twenty-five (25) members.

Segregation is still practiced in a majority of the churches in Houston. Catholic churches have always maintained an open-door policy. Membership in Catholic and Protestant churches, however, generally parallels the racial make-up of neighborhoods. Religious integration is prevalent in areas where neighborhood transition is in progress. Also, some ecumenical and religious cooperation is taking place among the pastorate of Houston churches. 290

Application for citizenship in the United Kiahs of America

(KKK) is restricted to white males. In answer to an inquiry concerning membership in the Houston branch of the KKK, "Action Line"

(The Houston Post, May 13, 1973) publicized portions of an application for membership in the organization. The form read, in part, this way: "being a white male Gentile person of temperate habits, sound in mind and a believer in the tenets of the Christian religion, the maintenance of White Supremacy and the principles of a pure

Americanism, do respectively apply for membership in the United Klans of America..." Obviously, this organization limits its membership by race and sex. Its existence serves as a reminder for those who would insist that the ancient blinders of racism have disappeared in Houston

The Ku Klux Klan advertises its fundamental beliefs in racial separation and commitment to racial segregation. Such beliefs and attitudes are part of a seamless web intertwined in the climate of the City. It reminds us that some persons still desire the type of isolation as was experienced in days past.

THE CHALLENGE AHEAD

An urban challenge of major proportions unfolds as one reviews the problems, the progress, and the prospects for minority groups in

Houston. Despite court orders, the laws and ordinances passed; despite the achievements made by mostly middle class blacks and browns; despite 291

the legislative victories and speeches made by those engaged in the struggle for social change and equal rights, there exists a widening gulf between rich and poor -- between black and white; brown and white.

Economic hardships are encountered by the poor and the aged. Latent racism continues unabated. One manifestation of this is in the area of housing; in a lack of genuine concern for the delivery of services to the poor. Other examples may be found in the continued existence of slum areas; in inequities in income; in law enforcement; and in the availability of health services to blacks, other minorities, and the poor. Beyond racism, there is the challenge to work toward building an open society in Houston, as was suggested by the late Whitney M.

Young, Jr. in his book, Beyond Racism.5 Young, like President Lyndon

B. Johnson and President John F. Kennedy along with Dr. Martin Luther

King, Jr., had hopes for America. Johnson illustrates this best:

Freedom is not enough. You do not wipe away . . . the scars of centuries by saying: Now you are free to go where you want, do as you desire, and choose the leaders you please...Thus it is not enough to open the gates of opportunity. All of our citizens

must have the ability to walk through those gates . .

He further demonstrated his commitment to human rights and equal justice when he told the graduates of Howard University that "we seek not just freedom but opportunity not just legal equity but human ability not just equality as a right and a theory, but equality as a fact and a result..." These words were echoed many years ago now, but the commitment to human rights in America and in Houston has yet to be fulfilled. 292

The building of a more open society in Houston is a matter cf individual commitment; of institutional commitment, of local will and sanction. The selection of programs and strategies for change must become consistent with human needs and creative acts of public policy. The challenge ahead will require firm commitments and dedicated leadership -- a leadership which can and will transform "the commands of our laws into the customs of our society."

The challenge ahead will require setting and achieving goals for improving the lives of all citizens, especially the less fortunate. 293

FOOTNOTES

1 The Forward Times, May 5, 1973.

2 Negro Employment in the South: The Houston Labor Market, Manpower Research Monograph No. 23, U. S. Department of Labor, 1971, pp. 25-26.

3 Ibid.

4 Ibid.

5 Whitney M. Young, Jr., Beyond Racism (New York: McGraw - Hill Book Company, 1969).

6 "To Fulfill These Rights," Remarks by President Lyndon B. Johnson at Howard University, Washington, D. C., June 4, 1965. APPENDIX A

TABLE 126 CENSUS TRACT FOR HOUSTON

TRACT ALL PERSONS WHITE WHITE BLACK BLACK

0121 3,719 3,137 85.8 527 14.2 0122 4,627 3,695 81.6 853 18.4 0123 2,042 1,194 91.1 182 8.9 0124 4,822 790 17.8 3,965 82.2 0125 1,391 1,284 95.2 167 4.8 0126 7,448 1,042 15.7 6,280 84.3 0201 10,834 82 .9 10,741 99.1 0202 6,532 5,749 90.6 613 9.4 0202 99 35 27 80.0 7 20.0 0203 13,497 11,499 87.4 1,700 12.6 0204 4,167 57 1.5 4,105 98.5 0205 16,235 954 6.3 15,206 93.7 0206 9,231 1,065 12.1 8,115 87.9 0207 10,159 894 9.4 9,202 90.6 0208 14,711 1,844 13.0 12,803 87.0 0209 875 854 97.7 20 2.3 0210 11,981 1,336 11.4 10,619 88.6 0211 37 37 100.0 0213 5,311 5,091 96.2 203 3.8 02a4 3,586 2,921 82.9 614 17.1 0215 16,983 7,773 47.0 9,080 53.0 0216 6,796 1,574 23.6 5,191 76.4 0217 11,807 1,535 13.7 10,194 86.3 0218 11,190 5,759 53.1 5,251 46.9 0219 5,964 3,841 65.7 2,046 34.3 0220 6,904 6,621 96.8 219 3.2 0221 2,478 2,462 0223 191 191 0224 3,792 247 7.0 3,525 93.0 0225 14,860 4,672 32.4 10,051 67.6 0226 2,992 2,854 95.7 128 4.3 0227 5,818 5,793 99.9 4 .1 0228 21 21 - 0230 437 434 0231 6,965 6,939 1 0232 5,750 5,718 - 0232 99 94 90 96.8 3 3.2 0233 9 9 0234 12 12 0236 78 78 0237 44 44

294 295

TABLE 126 CENSUS TRACT FOR HOUSTON (CONT.)

TRACT ALL PERSONS WHITE WHITE BLACK BLACK

0240 297 297 0241 1,406 1,396 99.7 4 .3 0243 1,698 1,367 80.6 329 19.4 0244 26 4 15.4 22 84.6 0245 1,218 1,213 99.6 5 .4 0247 58 58 0248 358 357 99.7 1 .3 0249 540 513 25 4.6 0250 103 103 0251 223 220 0253 32 32 0254 15 15 0301 10,545 10,350 95.4 10 .1 0302 5,813 5,451 95.7 251 4.3 0303 3,581 158 4.8 3,410 95.2 0304 14,304 218 1.9 14,033 98.1 0305 11,318 79 1.0 11,210 99.0 0306 7,634 832 11.3 6,771 88.7 0307 12,519 564 4.6 11,938 95.4 0308 7,024 5,314 80.1 1,470 20.9 0309 9,723 9,545 99.2 79 .8 0310 6,322 6,251 99.8 12 .2 0311 9,356 9,185 99.2 75 .8 0311.99 39 28 82.1 7 17.9 0312 7,973 7,673 99.6 31 .4 0312.99 6 6 0313 9,801 9,702 99.7 33 .3 0314 7,621 4,816 64.1 2,737 35.9 0315 7,663 2,175 29.6 5,391 70.4 0316 5,544 2,570 49.0 2,825 51.0 0317 15,484 4,229 28.5 11,078 71.5 0318 19,071 9,112 48.7 9,787 51.3 0319 5,786 5,740 99.7 15 .3 0320 15,447 15,349 99.9 16 .1 0321 11,704 9,882 85.8 1,664 14.2 0322 11,76 0 11,706 0323 8,408 8,329 99.8 16 .2 0324 11,900 11,747 99.8 25 .2 0325 9,213 9,142 3 0326 7,729 7,693 1 0327 10,399 5,254 51.3 5,065 48.7 0328 16,144 3,733 23.3 12,351 76.5 0329 10,526 96 1.1 10,410 98.9 0330 5,413 154 2.9 5,257 97.1 296

TABLE 126 CENSUS TRACT FOR HOUSTON (CONT.)

TRACT ALL PERSONS WHITE WHITE BLACK BLACK

0331 1,029 1,006 98.1 20 1.9 0332 6,479 4,762 74.0 1,683 26.0 0333 2,742 2,184 80.6 552 19.4 0334 5,376 5,044 94.3 309 5.7 0335 12,921 12,573 98.0 259 2.0 0338 2,641 2,588 99.2 21 .8 0339 10,017 40 .5 9,962 99.5 0340 7,451 606 8.3 6,834 91.7 0342 1,080 1,079 100.0 - - 0343 7,187 1,962 28.4 5,149 71.6 0344 1,706 1,698 .9 1 .1 0345 6,601 6,575 100.0 0346 1,970 1,963 100.0 0347 18.217 18,121 99.9 10 .1 0359 789 768 99.9 1 .1 0361 4 - 0361 99 118 85 86.4 16 13.6 0362 12 12 100.0 0367 373 370 100.0 - 0370 746 717 97.2 21 2.8 0371 1,596 1,589 99.7 4 .3 0401 5,963 5,424 92.7 433 7.3 0402 11,551 11,012 96.8 368 3.2 0403 7,058 6,901 99.1 67 .9 0404 6,805 6,663 99.4 39 .6 0405 9,340 9,167 99.8 19 .2 0406 5,978 5,845 98.6 86 1.4 0407 10,349 10,114 98.7 142 1.3 0412 9,956 9,801 99.4 62 .6 0413 8,654 8,511 99.8 13 .2 0414 8,948 8,705 99.7 73 .3 0415 14,834 14,624 99.6 56 .4 0416 18,611 18,375 99.9 17 .1 0419 14,169 13,932 99.4 91 .6 0420 14,091 13,937 99.6 63 .4 0421 3,698 3,660 99.6 16 .4 0422 16,269 16,152 99.8 28 .2 0423 17,616 15,737 90.0 1,760 10.0 0424 12,590 12,501 99.9 15 .1 0425 14,997 14,836 99.7 38 .3 0426 7,640 7,583 99.9 6 .1 0427 6,118 6,072 100.0 3 0428 8,476 8,410 99.8 18 .2 0429 4,616 4,553 99.7 15 .3 0430 3,439 3,407 99.7 12 .3 297

TABLE 126 CENSUS TRACT FOR HOUSTON (CONT.)

TRACT ALL PERSONS WHITE WHITE BLACK BLACK

0431 6,951 6,898 99.9 8 .1 0432 2,345 2,335 99.7 6 .3 0433 3,169 2,868 91.2 280 8.8 0434 16 13 81.2 3 18.8 0435 5,835 5,793 100.0 1 0438 2,837 2,833 100.0 0439 3,845 3,829 99.9 5 .1 0440 3,690 3,663 98.8 7 .2 0441 50 50 100.0 - 0442 12,955 12,919 97.7 35 .3 0443 23,189 23,119 100.0 8 0444 18,175 18,077 100.0 7 0445 12,343 12,306 99.9 7 .1 0446 17,403 17,354 99.9 9 .1 0447 10,181 10,146 100.0 2 0501 126 69 55.6 56 44.4 0502 3,211 477 20.2 2,562 79.8 0503 13,777 12,002 92.8 986 7.2 0504 4,097 2,364 59.0 1,678 41.0 0505 6,220 4,200 70.0 1,863 30.0 0506 9,901 9,762 99.5 50 .5 0507 8,603 8,529 99.5 39 .5 0508 5,925 4,181 73.7 1,561 26.3 0509 12,867 10,391 82.9 2,204 17.1 0510 6,865 585 8.8 6,263 91.2 0511 6,951 6,879 99.7 18 .3 0512 7,617 7,512 99.8 12 .2 0513 3,501 3,116 89.4 371 10.6 0514 7,709 3,149 42.3 4,451 57.7 0515 8,023 6,989 88.5 925 11.5 0516 7,778 7,467 71.0 227 2.9 0517 13,449 13,091 81.0 260 1.9 0518 13,561 11,044 82.0 2,439 18.0 0519 13,602 11,671 76.4 1,851 13.6 0520 12,975 7,019 56.7 5,621 43.3 0621 10,253 10,114 99.0 14 .1 0522 11,967 11,902 95.0 5 0523 11,908 11,789 98.0 26 .2 0524 2,121 153 7.4 1,964 92.6 0525 3,898 941 35.4 2,948 75.6 0526 16,491 16,312 82.0 113 .7 0527 9,680 9,636 4 0528 2,033 741 36.4 1,288 63.4 0529 4,349 4,336 2 0531 253 6 2.4 247 97.6 0532 2,905 2,890 100.0 0533 114 114 100.0 298

TABLE 127 PERCENT DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION BY CENSUS TRACT & COUNTY, 1970

Census Tract Houston (part in Harris County)

White Black % Black

0121 3,137 527 14.2 0122 3,695 853 18.4 0123 1,794 182 8.9 0124 790 3,965 82.2 0125 1,284 67 4.8 0126 1,042 6,280 84.3 0201 82 10,741 99.1 0202 5,749 613 9.4 0202 99 27 7 20.0 0203 11,499 1,700 12.6 0204 57 4,105 98.5 0205 954 15,206 93.7 0206 1,065 8,115 87.5 0207 894 9,202 90.6 0208 1,844 12,803 87.0 0209 854 20 2.3 0210 1,336 10,619 88.6 0211 37 100.0 0213 5,091 203 3.8 0214 2,921 614 17.1 0215 7,773 9,080 53.5 0216 1,571 5,191 76.4 0217 1,535 10,194 86.3 0218 5,759 5,251 46.9 0219 3,841 2,046 34.3 0220 6,621 219 3.2 0221 2,462 - 0223 191 0224 247 3,525 93.0 0225 4,672 10,051 67.6 0226 2,854 128 4.3 0227 5,793 4 0.1 0228 21 0230 434

0231 6,939 1 0232 5,718 0232 99 90 3 3.2 0233 9 0234 12 0236 78 0237 44 299

TABLE 127 PERCENT DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION BY CENSUS TRACT & COUNTY, 1970

Census Tract Houston (part in Harris County) Cont.

White Black % Black

0240 297 0241 1,396 4 0.3 0243 1,367 329 19.4 0244 4 22 84.6 0245 1,213 5 0.4 0247 58 0248 357 1 0.3 0249 513 25 4.6 0250 103 0251 220 0253 32 0254 15 0301 10,350 10 0.1 0302 5,451 251 4.3 0303 158 3,410 95.2 0304 218 14,033 98.1 0305 79 11,210 99.0 0306 832 6,771 88.7 0307 564 1,938 95.4 0308 5,314 1,470 20.9 0309 9,545 79 0.8 0310 6,251 12 0.2 0311 9,185 75 0.8 0311.99 28 7 17.9 0312 7,673 31 0.4 0312.99 6 0313 9,707 33 0.3 0314 4,816 2,737 35.9 0315 2,175 5,391 70.4 0316 2,570 2,825 51.0 0317 4,229 11,078 71.5 0318 9,112 9,787 51.3 0319 5,740 15 0.3 0320 15,349 16 0.1 0321 9,882 1,664 14.2 0322 11,706 4 0323 8,329 16 0.2 0324 11,747 25 0.2 0325 9,142 3 - 0326 7,693 1 - 0327 5,254 5,065 48.7 0328 3,733 12,351 76.5 0329 96 10,410 98.9 300

TABLE 127 PERCENT DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION BY CENSUS TRACT & COUNTY, 1970

Census Tract Houston (part in Harris County) Cont.

White Black % Black

0330 154 5,257 97.1 0331 1,006 20 1.9 0332 4,762 1,683 26.0 0333 2,184 532 19.4 0334 5,044 309 5.7 0335 12,573 259 2.0 0338 2,588 21 0.8 0339 40 9,962 99.5 0340 606 6,834 91.7 0342 1,079 0343 1,962 5,149 71.6 0344 1,698 1 0.1 0345 6,575 0346 1,963 0347 18,121 10 0.1 0359 768 1 0.1 0361 0361.99 85 16 13.6 0362 12 0367 370 0370 717 21 2.8 0371 1,589 4 0.3 0401 5,424 433 7.3 0402 11,012 368 3.2 0403 6,901 67 0.9 0404 6,663 39 0.6 0405 9,167 19 0.2 0406 5,845 86 1.4 0407 10,114 142 1.4 0412 9,801 62 0.6 0413 8,511 13 0.2 0414 8,785 23 0.3 0415 14,624 56 0.4 0416 18,375 17 0.1 0419 13,932 91 0.6 0420 13,937 63 0.4 0421 3,660 16 0.4 0422 16,152 28 0.2 0423 15,737 1,760 10.0 0424 12,501 15 0.1 301

TABLE 127 PERCENT DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION BY CENSUS TRACT & COUNTY, 1970

Census Tract Houston (part in Harris County) Cont.

White Black '% Black

0425 14,836 38 0.3 0426 7,583 6 0.1 0427 6,072 3 0428 8,410 18 0.2 0429 4,553 15 0.3 0430 3,407 12 0.3 0431 6,898 8 0.1 0432 2,335 6 0.3 0433 2,868 280 8.8 0434 13 3 18.8

0435 5,793 1 0438 2,833 0439 3,829 5 0.1 0440 3,663 7 0.2 0441 50 - 0442 12,919 35 0.3 0443 23,119 8 0444 18,077 7 - 0445 12,306 7 0.1 0446 17,354 9 0.1 0447 10,146 2 0501 69 56 44.4 0502 477 562 79.8 0503 12,002 986 7.2 0504 2,364 1,678 41.0 0505 4,200 1,863 30.0 0506 9,762 50 0.5 0507 8,529 39 0.5 0508 4,181 1,561 26.3 0509 10,391 2,204 17.1 0510 585 6,263 91.2 0511 6,879 18 0.3 0512 7,512 12 0.2 0513 3,116 371 10.6 0514 3,149 4,451 57.7 0515 6,989 925 11.5 0516 7,467 227 2.9 0517 13,091 260 1.9 0518 11,044 2,439 18.0 0519 11,671 1,851 13.6 302

TABLE 127 PERCENT DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION BY CENSUS TRACT & COUNTY, 1970

Census Tract Houston (part in Harris County) Cont.

White Black % Black

0520 7,019 5,621 43.3 0521 10,114 14 0.1 0522 11,902 5 - 0523 11,789 26 0.2 0524 153 1,964 92.6 0525 941 2,948 75.6 0526 16,312 113 0.7 0527 9,636 4 0528 741 1,288 63.4 0529 4,336 2 - 0531 6 247 97.6 0532 2,890 0533 114

Census Tract Baytown

White Black % Black

0261 179 0263 4,063 3 0.1 0264 2,427 888 26.4 0265 1,728 121 6.5 0266 4,976 7 0.1 0267 4,038 19 0.5 0268 1,441 11 0.8 0269 6,336 53 0.8 0270 4,553 31 0.7 0271 3,154 3 0.1 0272 3,570 805 18.3 0273 3,797 215 5.3 0274 1,365 2 0.1 0275 -

Census Tract Pasadena

White Black % Black

0349 9,502 6 0.1 0350 8,831 9 0.1 0351 3,981 0352 273 0353 11,368 5 0355 14,335 5 0356 13,067 9 0.1 0357 18,871 6

0358 4,273 1 0359 4,056 0360 47 0366 236 4 1.7 393

TABLE 127 PERCENT DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION BY CENSUS TRACT & COUNTY, 1970

Census Tract Balance of Harris County

White Black % Black

0211 9,057 1,358 13.0 0212 9,522 - - 0222 6,120 271 4.2 0223 11,347 600 5.0 0224 9,648 679 6.5 0225 287 691 70.2 0226 22 0228 3,241 0229 1,781 0230 17,984 9 0233 1,571 4 0.3 0233.99 36 2 5.3 0234 2,557 8 0.3 0235 3,921 2 0.1 0236 1,663

0237 568 1 0.2 0238 2,547 - - 0239 5,289 77 1.4 0240 8,104 4 0241 2,378 1 0242 859 0243 29 6 17.1 0244 1,653 216 11.5 0245 3,234 33 1.0 0246 618 873 58.2 0247 274 0248 57 0249 1,813 0250 355 0251 1,679 3 0.2 0252 549 4 0.7 0253 894 136 13.2 0254 779 - 0255 1,657 20 1.2 0256 435 10 2.2

0257 577 1 0.2 0258 1,877 2,745 59.3 0259 4,413 2,016 31.3 304

TABLE 127 PERCENT DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION BY CENSUS TRACT & COUNTY, 1970

Census Tract Balance of Harris County (Cont.)

White Black % Black

0260 147 19 11.4 0261 1,607 25 1.5 0262 836 17 2.0 0263 590 1 0.2 0264 O*0 ... 0267 0268 329 1 0.3 0269 ...... 0275 77 0334 175 0336 1,217 26 2.1 0337 359 67 15.7 0341 252 73 21.0 0348 11,416 28 0.2 0350 9 - 0359 6 0360 12,721 1 0361 00. GOO 0362 1'16' - 0363 989 0364 740 17 2.2 0365 4,807 906 15.8 0366 6,531 0367 167 0368 6,222 7 0.1 0369 2,234 27 1.2 0371 7,774 16 0.2 0372 596 0373 10,360 30 0.3 0374 5,439 6 0.1 0375 66 0408 3,345 1 0409 3,947 2 0.1 0410 5,942 5 0.1 0.1 0411 1,459 1 0417 12,571 8 0.1 0418 6,321 2 - 0422 214 3 1.4 0433 3,156 9 0.3 0434 828 33 3.8 3'15

TABLE 127 PERCENT DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION BY CENSUS TRACT & COUNTY, 1970

Census Tract Balance of Harris County (Cont.)

White Black % Black

0435 98 0436 10,347 15 0.1 0437 128 18 12.3 0438 4,898 53 1.1 0439 19 2 9.5 0440 12,899 17 0.1 0441 3,788 0445 530 0446 3,633 0447 3,647 8 0.2 0448 207 5 2.3 0449 166 12 6.7 0450 181 3 1.6 0451 254 18 6.6 0452 2,373 43 1.8 0525 1,352 5,404 79.9 0529 160 4 2.4 0530 4,032 4,871 54.6 0531 5,907 7,524 55.8 0532 9,775 6 0.1 0533 10,469 14 0.1 0534 1,725 6 0.3

0535 281 1 0.4 0536 2,294 0537 1,259 22 1.7 0538 1,810 173 8.7 0539 1,642 140 7.8 0540 2,082 0541 1,916 0542 1,232 997 44.7 0543 492 0544 25 9 24.3 0545 4,488 0546 346 53 13.3 0547 325 132 28.9 0548 351 1 0.3 0549 355 41 10.4 0550 417 8 1.9 306

TABLE 127 PERCENT DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION BY CENSUS TRACT & COUNTY, 1970

Census Tract Balance of Harris County (Cont.)

White Black % Black

0551 1,194 42 3.4 0552 1,170 18 1.5 0553 2.421 309 11.3 0554 432 3 0.7 0555 697 242 25.7 0556 1,727 1 0.1 0557 257 203 44.1 0558 2,503 2 0.1 0559 1,775 393 18.1

Census Tract Totals for Split Tracts in Harris County

White Black % Black

0211 9,057 1,395 13.3 0223 11,538 600 4.9 0224 9.895 4,204 29.5 0225 4,959 10,742 67.8 0226 2,876 128 4.2 0228 3,262 - - 0230 18,418 9 0233 1,580 4 0.3 0234 2,569 8 0.3 0236 1,741 - - 0237 612 1 0.2 0240 8,401 4 - 0241 3,774 5 0.1 0243 1,396 335 19.3 0244 1,657 238 12.5 0245 4,447 38 0.8 0247 332 - 0248 414 1 0.2 0249 2,326 25 1.1 0250 458 - - 0251 1,899 3 0.2 0253 926 136 12.8 0254 794 307

TABLE 127 PERCENT DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION BY CENSUS TRACT & COUNTY, 1970

Census Tract Totals for Split Tracts in Harris County (Cont.)

White Black % Black

0261 1,786 25 1.4 0263 4,653 4 0.1 0264 2,430 888 26.4 0267 4,807 19 0.4 0268 1,770 12 0.7 0269 6,338 53 0.8 0275 81 - 0334 5,219 309 5.6 0350 8,840 9 0.1

0359 4,830 1

0360 12,768 1 0361 8 0362 131 0366 6,767 4 0.1 0367 537 - 0371 9,363 20 0.2 0422 16,366 31 0.2 0433 6,024 289 4.5 0434 841 36 4.1

0435 5,891 1 0438 7,731 53 0.7 0439 3,843 7 0.2 0440 16,562 24 0.1 0441 3,836 0445 12,836 7 0.1 0446 20,987 9 0447 13,793 10 0.1 0525 2,293 8,352 78.4 0529 4,496 6 0.1 0531 5,913 7,771 56.5 0532 12,655 6 - 0533 10,583 14 0.1 308

TABLE 127 PERCENT DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION BY CENSUS TRACT & COUNTY, 1970

Census Tract County Brazoria

White Black % Black

0601 6,082 13 0.2 0602 6,408 118 1.8 0603 2,484 27 1.0 0604 8,515 176 2.0 0605 4,637 182 3.8 0606 875 70 7.4 0607 754 80 9.6 0608 2,487 1,637 39.5 0609 4,950 25 0.5 0610 2,572 67 2.5 0611 2,631 0612 1,489 404 21.3 0613 1,381 308 18.2 0614 1,394 1,107 44.1 0615 326 58 15.1 0616 715 24 3.2 0617 1,284 822 38.8 0618 1,359 360 20.9 0619 3,699 689 15.6 0620 6,506 1,455 18.3 0621 377 618 62.1 0622 1,369 16 1.2 0623 1,034 158 13.2 0624 236 5 2.1 0625 13,672 50 0.4 0626 6,244 336 5.1 0627 1,841 28 1.5 0628 3,920 562 12.5 0629 6,625 722 9.8 0629.99 74 16 16.7

0630 669 1 0.1 0631 1,015 3 0.3 0632 61 309

TABLE 127 PERCENT DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION BY CENSUS TRACT & COUNTY, 1970

Census Tract County -- Fort Bend

White Black % Black

*0701 53 - 0701 8,801 1,131 11.3 0702 2,400 49 2.0 0703 3,539 1,510 29.8 0704 658 132 16.6 0705 510 390 42.6 0706 1,224 634 33.8 0707 5,683 2,074 26.7 0708 124 120 49.0 0709 8,873 615 6.5 0710 6,074 572 8.6 0711 1,176 137 10.4 0712 354 854 68.3 0713 2,272 585 20.4 0714 1,427 73 4.9

Census Tract Total fbr split Tract in Fort Bend County

White Black % Black

0701 8,854 1,131 11.2

*Houston (part in Fort Bend County) 310

TABLE 127 PERCENT DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION BY CENSUS TRACT & COUNTY, 1970

Census Tract Adjacent Tracts in Waller County

White Black % Black

0801 407 26 6.0 0802 1,541 1,637 51.2 0803 2,354 4,141 63.6 0804 2,373 1,702 41.1

Census Tract Houston (part in Montgomery County)

White Black % Black

0901 9

Census Tract Balance of Montgomery County

White Black % Black

0901 5,822 45 0.8 0902 4,778 395 7.6 0903 3,415 335 8.9 0904 618 578 48.2 0905 1,362 136 9.1 0906 8,064 844 9.4 0907 5,831 1,801 23.5 0908 5,133 87 1.7 0909 1,259 23 1.8 0910 3,474 346 9.0 0911 3,183 884 21.6 0912 513 366 41.5 311

TABLE 127 PERCENT DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION BY CENSUS TRACT & COUNTY, 1970

Census Tract Total for Split Tract in Montgomery County

White Black % Black

0901 5,831 45 0.8

Census Tract Liberty County

White Black % Black

1001 2,674 1002 3,704 2,052 35.6 1003 1,663 1004 836 79 8.6 1005 952 134 12.2 1006 1,257 204 14.0 1007 2,631 171 6.1 1008 620 137 18.0 1009 3,241 1,947 37.4 1010 3,262 903 21.6 1011 3,370 730 23.5 1012 2,843 504 15.0

Census Tract Adjacent Tracts in Chambers County

White Black % Black

1101 3,107 498 13.8 1102 1,217 1,194 49.5 1103 3,525 488 12.1 1104 1,829 307 14.4 312

TABLE 128 NUMBER OF PERSONS PER HOUSEHOLD BY CENSUS TRACT & COUNTY, 1970

Census Tract Houston (part in Harris County)

Persons per Household

0121 1.30 0122 4.04 0123 3.54 0124 2.54 0125 1.89 0126 2.89 0201 3.15 0202 3.79 0202.99 0203 3.54 0204 2.90 0205 3.19 0206 3.47 0207 3.73 0208 3.67 0209 3.85 0210 3.72 0211 5.29 0213 3.44 0214 3.48 0215 3.86 0216 3.37 0217 3.86 0218 3.49 0219 3.32 0220 3.41 0221 3.67 0223 4.06 0224 4.30 0225 4.07 0226 3.88 0227 3.66 0228 3.50 0230 3.47 0231 3.60 0232 3.04 0232.99 0233 1.50 0234 2.40 313

TABLE 128 NUMBER OF PERSONS PER HOUSEHOLD BY CENSUS TRACT & COUNTY, 1970

Census Tract Houston (part in Harris County) (Cont.

Persons per Household

0236 3.00 0237 3.14 0240 4.23 024 1 3.68 0243 3.82 0244 2.89 0245 3.50 0247 3.05 0248 3.62 0249 2.76 0250 2.34 0251 3.14 0253 3.56 0254 2.50 0301 3.22 0302 2.53 0303 3.11 0304 2.90 0305 2.85 0306 2.85 0307 2.87 0308 2.73 0309 2.39 0310 3.08 0311 3.46 0311 99 0312 3.58 0312.99 0313 2.56 0314 2.95 0315 2.99 0316 2.24 0317 3.17 0318 3.45 0319 2.56 0320 2.55 0321 3.06 0322 356 0323 2.81 0324 2.71 314

TABLE 128 NUMBER OF PERSONS PER HOUSEHOLD BY CENSUS TRACT & COUNTY 1970

Census Tract Houston (part in Harris County)(Cont.)

Persons per household

0325 3.24 0326 3.35 0327 3.96 0328 4.01 0329 3.57 0330 3.32 0331 1.88 0332 4.11 0333 3.83 0334 3.89 0335 3.94 0338 3.47 0339 4.22 0340 4.15 0342 3.34 0343 3.98 0344 2.97 0345 3.59 0346 5.25 0347 3.71 0359 3.62 0361 0361.99 0362 084 0367 2.96 0370 3.22 0371 3.89 0401 2.27 0402 2.05 0403 1.73 0404 1.89 0405 1.79 0406 2.71 0407 2.07 0412 2.26 0413 2.54 0414 2.58 0415 3.15 0416 2.79 0419 2.23 315

TABLE 128 NUMBER OF PERSONS PER HOUSEHOLD BY CENSUS TRACT & COUNTY 1970

Census Tract Houston (part in Harris County) (Cont.)

Persons per household

0420 2.09 0421 2.43 0422 2.29 0423 2.82 0424 2.98 0425 3.39 0426 3.29

0427 , 4.14 0428 3.85 0429 3.80 0430 3.12 0431 3.74 0432 3.74 0433 4.12 0434 2.67 0435 3.56 0438 3.91 0439 3.38 0440 2.94 0441 2.38 0442 3.14 0443 3.40 0444 3.54 0445 3.62 0446 4.08 0447 3.83 0501 3.71 0502 2.97 0503 3.56 0504 3.32 0505 3.22 0506 2.47 0507 2.69 0508 3.57 0509 3.04 0510 3.34 0511 2.73 0512 2.48 0513 2.79 0514 3.01 316

TABLE 128 NUMBER OF PERSONS PER HOUSEHOLD BY CENSUS TRACT & COUNTY 1970 Census Tract Houston (part in Harris County) (Cont.)

Persons per household

0515 2.64 0516 3.05 0517 3.14 0518 2.96 0519 3.14 0520 3.30 0521 2.90 0522 3.35 0523 3.43 0524 3.22 0525 3.49 0526 3.28 0527 3.78 0528 4.19 0529 3.67 0531 3.51 0532 3.71 0533 3.56

Census Tract Baytown

Persons per household

0261 3.14 0263 3.49 0264 3.51 0265 3.27 0266 2.83 0267 3.64 0268 3.22 0269 3.11 0270 3.05 0271 3.06 0272 2.76 0273 2.94 0274 2.83 0275 317

TABLE 128 NUMBER OF PERSONS PER HOUSEHOLD BY CENSUS TRACT & COUNTY 1970

Census Tract Pasadena

Persons per household

0349 3.23 0350 3.10 0351 2.71 0352 3.22 0353 3.55 0355 3.70 0356 3.29 0357 3.45 0358 3.34 0359 3.16 0360 4.70 0366 2.55

Census Tract Balance of Harris County

Persons per household

0211 3.33 0212 3.29 0222 3.71 0223 3.94 0224 3.64 0225 4.39 0226 3.60 0228 3.66 0229 4.16 0230 3.51 0233 3.26 0233.99 0234 3.29 0235 3.33 0236 3.27 0237 3.48 0238 4.03 0239 3.72 318

TABLE 128 NUMBER OF PERSONS PER HOUSEHOLD BY CENSUS TRACT & COUNTY 1970

Census Tract Balance of Harris County (Cont.)

Persons per household

0240 3.86 0241 3.74 0242 3.76 0243 3.89 0244 3.90 0245 3.02 0246 3.37 0247 4.15 0248 2.85 0249 3.76 0250 3.48 0251 3.72 0252 3.53 0253 3.46 0254 3.42 0255 3.10 0256 3.59 0257 3.50 0258 3.74 0259 3.53 0260 3.46 0261 3.54 0262 3.71 0263 3.20 0264 0267 3.52 0268 3.71 0269 0275 2.66 0334 2.90 0336 3.39 0337 3.78 0341 3.73 0348 3.30 0350 0359 0360 3.85 0361 0362 2.74 0363 3.50 0364 3.10 319

TABLE 128 NUMBER OF PERSONS PER HOUSEHOLD BY CENSUS TRACT & COUNTY 1970

Census Tract Balance of Harris County (Cont.)

Persons per household

0365 3.20 0366 3.47 0367 3.34 0368 3.46 0369 3.37 0371 3.94 0372 3.66 0373 3.50 0374 2.86 0375 3.52 0408 2.55 0409 2.55 0410 2.46 0411 2.41 0417 3.20 0418 3.10 0422 3.50 0433 3.80 0434 3.63 0435 3.40 0436 3.61 0437 3.48 0438 3.75 0439 2.33 0440 3.66 0441 3.44 0445 3.42 0446 4.30 0447 3.78 0448 3.47 0449 3.03 0450 3.78 0451 3.37 0452 3.44 0525 3.98 0529 4.00 0530 3.77 0531 3.72 0532 3.80 0533 3.54 0534 3.10 320

TABLE 128 NUMBER OF PERSONS PER HOUSEHOLD BY CENSUS TRACT & COUNTY 1970

Census Tract Balance of Harris County (Cont.)

Persons per household

0535 3.57 0536 3.80 0537 3.52 0538 3.24 0539 3.47 0540 3.58 0541 3.60 0542 4.11 0543 3.37 0544 3.36 0545 3.85 0546 3.84 0547 3.31 0548 2.98 0549 3.02 0550 3.34 0551 3.60 0552 3.38 0553 3.03 0554 3.37 0555 3.55 0556 3.58 0557 3.59 0558 3.55 0559 3.38

Census Tract Totals for Split Tracts in Harris County

Persons per household

0211 3.33 0223 3.94 0224 3.79 0225 4.09 0226 3.88 0228 3.66 321

TABLE 128 NUMBER OF PERSONS PER HOUSEHOLD BY CENSUS TRACT & COUNTY 1970

Census Tract Totals for Split Tracts in Harris County (Cont.)

Persons per household

0230 3.56 0233 3.24 0234 3.28 0236 3.26 0237 3.45 0240 3.88 0241 3.72 0243 3.83 0244 3.88 0245 3.14 0247 3.91 0248 3.49 0249 3.47 0250 3.14 0251 3.64 0253 3.46 0254 3.40 0261 3.50 0263 3.45 0264 3.51 0267 3.62 0268 3.1n 0269 3.11 0275 2.61 0334 3.85 0350 3.10 0359 3.22 0360 3.85 0361 0362 2.83 0366 3.42 0367 3.07 0371 3.93 0422 2.30 0433 3.95 0434 3.61 0435 3.56 0438 3.81 0439 3.37 322

TABLE 128 NUMBER OF PERSONS PER HOUSEHOLD BY CENSUS TRACT & COUNTY 1970

Census Tract Totals for Split Tracts in Harris County (Cont.)

Persons per household

0440 3.47 0441 3.42 0445 3.61 0446 4.11 0447 3.82 0525 3.79 0529 3.68 0531 3.72 0532 3.78 0533 3.54

Census Tract Brazoria County

Persons per household

0601 3.75 0602 3.71 0603 3.58 0604 3.26 0605 3.62 0606 3.05 0607 3.86 0608 3.29 0609 3.19 0610 3.44 0611 3.51 0612 3.49 0613 3.88 0614 3.34 0615 3.25 0616 3.23 0617 3.16 0618 3.46 0619 3.37 0620 3.35 0621 3.32 0622 3.37 0623 3.40 0624 2.62 323

TABLE 128 NUMBER OF PERSONS PER HOUSEHOLD BY CENSUS TRACT & COUNTY 1970

Census Tract Brazoria County (Cont.)

Persons per household

0625 3.55 0626 3.44 0627 3.47 0628 3.04 0629 3.20 0629.99 0630 2.74 0631 3.18 0632 2.90

Census Tract Houston (part in Fort Bend County)

Persons per household

0701 3.31

Census Tract Fort Bend County

Persons per household

0701 3.87 0702 3.54 0703 3.83 0704 3.99 0705 3.34 0706 3.79 0707 3.73 0708 3.06 0709 3.39 0710 3.61 0711 3.40 0712 3.63 0713 3.42 0714 3.36 324

TABLE 128 NUMBER OF PERSONS PER HOUSEHOLD BY CENSUS TRACT & COUNTY 1970

Census Tract Total for Split Tract in Ft. Bend County

Persons per household

0701 3.87

Census Tract Adjacent Tracts in Waller County

Persons per household

0801 3.45 0802 3.42 0803 3.03 0804 3.05

Census Tract Total for Split Tract in Montgomery County

Persons per household

0901 3.55

Census Tract Houston (part in Montgomery County)

Persons per household

0901 325

TABLE 128 NUMBER OF PERSONS PER HOUSEHOLD BY CENSUS TRACT & COUNTY 1970

Census Tract Balance of Montgomery County

Persons per household

0901 3.55 0902 3.63 0903 3.43 0904 3.30 0905 3.07 0906 3.01 0907 3.30 0908 3.57 0909 3.36 0910 3.23 0911 3.03 0912 3.21

Census Tract Liberty County

Persons per household

1001 2.99 1002 3.11 1003 3.13 1004 3.21 1005 2.86 1006 3.23 1007 3.01- 1008 3.08 1009 3.23 1010 3.07 1011 3.30 1012 3.26

Census Tract Adjacent Tracts in Chambers County

Persons per household

1101 3.10 1102 3.12 1103 3.47 1104 2.87 Employment status of the civilian noninstitutional population in Dallas and Houston by ethnic group, sex, and age--1970 annual averages TAKE 129 Civilian (Numbers in thousands) Civilian labor force Area, ethnic group, sec, and age DALLAS populationnoninsti-tutional Number Participation rate Employment Level Range Unemployment(t)1 Rate Range2 SMSA: White Men 20 years and over Total 1,026 398919 362637723 91.069.370.5 616696355 2127 7 245 1.93.33.8 1.3-2.6-3.1- 2.54.04.5 Negro and other racesWomenBoth 20sexes, years 16-19 and overyears 435107 8650 224 8750 81.358.151.5 218 8042 678 32 15.5 7.72.7 11.3-19.74.9-10.51.9- 3.5 Central city: NegroWhite and other racesWomen 20 years and over Total 465555 90 328401(3) 73 81.870.472.3 318386 67 15 69 34 8.62.83.9 5.6-11.61.9-3.1- 3.74.7 SMSA: HOUSTON 31 5 --OlN.) White WomenMen 20 20 years years and and over over Total 1,165 441412953 210373642790 47.690.567.467.8 203622758369 20 75 24 4.03.31.33.2 2.4-2.6-3.4- 4.24.63.8 .8- 1.8 Negro and other racesMenBoth 20 sexes,years and16-19 over years 212101100 87 147 617359 83.969.359.0 136 7151 (4) 11 85 3-4 14.2 7.5 10.4-18.05.6- 9.4 Central city: NegrcWhite and other racesWomen 20 years and over Total 622834212 146424571 69.068.268.460.4 135414549 58 111021 435 7.58.22.53.8 5.6-1.7-3.0-4.1-12.3 9.43.34.6 3Not2In'In 90 shown outof ofwhereplus 100, orlevel minus of thecivilian level laborshown. force is less than 50,000. cases out of 100, the unemployment level from a complete census would fall within a range which had the limits on the average, the unemployment rate from a complete census would fall within the indicated ranges. SOURCE:NOTE:4Not shown where unemployment estimate is less than 5,000. Individual items mayBureau not ofadd Labor to totals Statistics, due to 1970rounding. Employment Characteristics. "Dallas & Houston, Texas." (Tables 129-34). Table 130 Employment status of the civilian noninstitutional population in Texas by ethnic group, sex, and age--1970 annual averages (Numbers in thousands Ethnic group, sex, and age populationnoninsti-tutionalCivilian Number Civilian labor force Participation rate Employment Level Rangy Unemployment(+ Rate Range 2 White Men 20 years and over Total 2,7357,4036,528 2,3274,0344,612 85.161.862.3 2,2714,4073,873 161205 56 101618 2.44.04.4 2.1-3.7-4.1- 2.74.34.7 BothWomen sexes, 20 years 16-19 and years over 3,081 712 1,358 349 49.044.1 1,306 296 5253 10 14.9 12.5- 3.917.3 3.1- 4.7 (,-;,3 Negro and other racesMenBothWomen 20 sexes, years20 years and16-19 andover years over 412875107356 240292578(3) 82.066.158.3 220281534 441911 10 65 7.67.93.8 6.8-2.4-6.2- 10.05.29.0 :4 lin 90 of plus or minus the level shown. cases out of 100, the unemployment level from a complete census would fall within a range which had the limits 3Not shown NOTE:whereIn 90 levelout of of 100, civilian on the labor average, force the is unemploymentless than 50,000. rate from a completeIndividual census would items fall may withinnot add the to indicatedtotals due ranges. to rounding. Full- and part-time status of the civilian labor forceby ethnic in Texas, group-1970 Dallas, annual and Houston averages Table 131 Full-time labor force (Numbers in thousada) Unemployed (Looking Part-time labor force Unemployed (looking Area Total schedulesFull-time Employed economicPart-time for for full-timeNumber work) ofPercent full- time Total part-timevoluntaryEmployed on for part-timeNumber work) ofPercent part- time TEXAS reasons forcelabor forcelabor NegroWhite and other races Total DALLAS 4,0393,548 491 3,7203,309 411 157114 43 125162 37 7.63.54.0 486573 87 450530 80 3743 7 7.67.5 SMSA: WhiteNegro and other races Total HOUSTON 568642 75 543607 64 (1) 1014 1522 7 8.82.73.4 (2) 6981 6476 5 7.76.7 SMSA: NegroWhite and other races Total 130574704 660113547 1220 8 1524 9 6.92.73.5 (2) 6885 6378 57 8.37.4 NOTE:2Not1Not shown where levelpart-time of labor for economicforce is reasonsless than is 50,000.less than 5,000. Individual items may not add to totals due to rounding. by occupation, sex, and ethnic group--1970 annual averagesEmployed persons 16 years old and over in Texas Table 132 All persons (Numbers in thousands White Negro and other races Occupation Total Male 1 Female Total Male Female Total 1 Male 1 Female PercentNumber employed White collar Professional and technical. 100.04,407 13.248.3 2,744100.0 40.212.9 100.01,664 13.561.6 100.03,873 14.152.3 100.02,443 43.414.0 100.01,430 14.467.6 100.0 18.9 6.1534 100.0 14.0 4.6300 100.0 25.2 8.0234 Managers,SalesClerical officials, andproprietors 17.411.0 6.7 14.7 6.16.4 35.5 7.65.0 18.712.1 7.5 15.9 6.86.7 39.1 8.65.5 8.33.41.1 4.14.8(1) 13.813.7 (1) Blue collar NonfarmOperativesCraftsmen laborers and foremen 15.513.133.8 5.3 18.720.347.2 8.1 10.111.9 (1)1.2 14.813.832.8 4.2 17.621.145.3 6.5 11.6 9.9(1)1.3 41.212.620.5 8.1 21.627.362.713.8 11.8 (1)(1) FarmService AllPrivate other household 11.213.9 4.02.8 5.76.9(1) 25.518.2 7.31.0 11.0 9.53.91.5 5.55.8(1) 15.719.7 1.14.1 23.412.035.4 4.5 15.415.9 7.4(1) 33.726.760.5 (1) NOTE:_1Not shown Individual where levelitems ofmay employment not add to is totals less thandue to5,000 rounding. or percentage is less than one percent. Table 133 by occupation, sex, and ethnicEmployed persons 16 years old and umbers in thousands group--1970 annual averages over in Dallas SMSA Occupation Total All persons 1 Male I Female Total 1 Male White [ Female Total Negro and other races 1 Male 1 PercentNumber employed' White collar 100.0 59.3 696 100.0 52.9 426 100.0 69.4 270 100.0 64.5 616 100.0 57.6 380 100.0 75.6 236 100.0 19.2 80 (3) Female (3) Managers,ClericalProfessional officials, and technical andproprietors 21.713.116.0 18.817.3 7.7 43.914.0 4.2 23.114.717.3 20.818.8 14.8 4.8 Blue collar OperativesCraftsmenSales and foremen 28.611.4 8.4 17.738.9 9.1 12.3 7.3(2) 11.626.3 9.4 36.110.218.0 7.7 10.547.8 8.3(2) 46.2 Service AllPrivateNon other farm household laborers 11.513.3 1.93.9 14.9 7.26.3(2) 18.210.8 4.8(2) 11.7 1.28.63.1 13.2 5.44.8(2) 13.7 3.19.1(2) 33.7 'Total includes farm workers not shown separately. 9.5 7.1 13.3 7.4 5.4 10.6 NOTE:3Not2Not shown Individual items may not add to totalswhere due employmentwhere levelis less of thanemployment 80,000. is less than 5,000 to rounding. or percentage is less than one percent. by occupation, sex, and ethnic Employedgroup--1970 persons annual 16 averagesyears old and over in Houston SMSA Table 134 Occupation ( Numbers in thousands White All persons1 1 Negro and other races PercentNumber employed' Total100.0 758 100.0 Male 469 Female 100.0 289 100.0Total 622 1 100.0 Male 394 1 Female lnn.n 228 100.0Total 136 1 Male (3) 1 Female (3) White collar Managers,Professional officials, and technical andproprietors 11.012.550.2 12.039.614.3 13.567.5 5.6 12.314.155.8 15.613.544.0 15.276.3 6.6 24.9 Blue collar CraftsmenSalesClerical and foremen 14.736.019.2 7.5 23.053.1 6.96.5 39.9 8.18.5(2) .20.534.815.4 8.8 23.750.7 8.06.8 44.210.2 7.3(2) 41.3 Service OperativesPrivateNon farm householdlaborers 16.313.6 2.75.0 22.5 7.07.6(2) 24.4 7.06.3(2) 15.9 1.09.33.4 21.9 5.2(2)5.1 16.4 5.72.8(2) 33.3 'Total includes farm workers not shown separately.All other 11.0 6.9 17.4 8.3 5.1 13.6 2NotNOTE:3Not shown shown where where level employment of employment is less isthan less 80,000. than 5,000 or percentage is Individualless than oneitems percent. may not add to totals due to rounding. 332

DIRECTORY OF HOSPITALS* (HOUSTON AND HARRIS COUNTY)

1973

BAYTOWN GENERAL HOSPITAL -191 beds, a general hospital. Volunteers are needed to work with patients and the staff. An emergency room program has recently begun. Volunteers are on duty day and night, seven days a week. There is also a junior program. Call Mrs. Douglas, 427-0511.

BELLAIRE GENERAL HOSPITAL - 170 beds, a general hospital. Both adult and junior volunteers are needed in all traditional volunteer work areas. This hospital is particularly proud of its junior program which includes Candy Striping for girls (floor work) and Medi-Stats for boys (emergency room; sorry, no girls work in this area). Call Pauline Claiborne, 666-1721.

BEN TAUB GENERAL HOSPITAL -(Harris County Hospital District) - About 500 beds, a public general hospital with a particularly well equipp- ed and recognized emergency room. Volunteers work throughout the hospital and clinics on floors, as nurses' aides, in the chapel, at information desks, in emergency room. Volunteers are used seven days a week, almost around the clock. A four-hour shift system is generally used, but hours are flexible. Eighteen is the preferred minimum age, but exceptions have been made. Men and retired people are encouraged to apply. No junior program. Call Gerry Newton, 529-3211.

CLEAR LAKE HOSPITAL 144 beds, ,a general hospital, (almost brand new). Volunteers are needed in the gift shop, therapy, work with patients and staff. Auxiliary needsvolunteers all the time, but particularly between 3 and 6 p.m. Need "unencumbered" people for weekend work and to supervise new junior program. Call Mrs. Sharp, 332-2511.

*Source: The Houston Post, appeared in a series. 333

DIAGNOSTIC CENTER HOSPITAL - 300 beds, medical/ surgical hospital. No adult program. Taking applications for junior program to begin this summer. Call General Nursing Office, 522-1711.

DOCTORS HOSPITAL 108 beds, a general hospital. Volunteers needed to work with patients, handle food trays, patient mail, errands for patients, letterwriting. Tour is provided after interview. Call Ginger Russell, 695-6041.

EASTWAY GENERAL 115 beds, a general community hospital. Volunteers needed for all areas of traditional patient-contact work. Volunteers work seven days a week; hours are flexible. A year-round junior program: 14 years minimum age with parental consent. Personal training on the job. Call Mrs. Rufus Phillips, Sugar- land, 494-2781.

HEIGHTS HOSPITAL 175 beds, general hospital. Volunteers needed to work in gift shop, with coffee carts, handle patients' mail and flowers. Auxiliary. Work in four-hour shifts, week days for adult group. Junior program: Weekend work, 141/2 minimum age. Call Blanche McGrew, 861-6161.

HERMANN HOSPITAL About 700 beds, expanding to more than 1,000 by 1976; a teaching hospital for University of Texas Medical School in Houston. Volunteers work at nursing stations, do "legwork" for staff, work at surgery desk information, Ob- Gyn floor desk (aiding families), in outpatient clinic, gift shop, and with patient charts. Volunteers work in three shifts weekdays; 8:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. Saturdays, noon to 4:30 p.m. Sundays. Eighteen is preferred minimum age for adult program (or high school completed). Auxi- liary: Hermann Hospital Volunteers Inc. Junior program: Saturday and Sunday during school year, regular shifts during the summer. Minimum age for juniors: 15. Call Jane Helander, 527-4141, 527-4142, 527-4143. 3:3!`.

JEFFERSON DAVIS HOSPITAL, (Harris County Hospital) - Almost 350 beds, a public hospital specializing in maternity and infant care (overseeing 900 babies a month). Volunteers have an unusual amount of patient-contact. Many patients have no family, no friends. Volunteers work in the nursery, OB clinics, pediatrics, offices, information desks in labor and delivery. Hours are flexible but nursery help needed weekends. Special needs include a couple to run Bingo games one evening a week, and someone to oversee a crafts program. TB tests and chest x-ray required and furnished. Junior program: 16 minimum age, summers. Call Dorothy Braden, 224-1199.

MEDICAL ARTS HOSPITAL 127 beds, general medical/ surgical hospital. Adult auxiliary currently organized, would like to hear from those interested in joining Junior program (Peppermints): 14 minimum age, for girls and boys, one-day orientation, beginning first of June. Call Mrs. Mattocks, 228-8181.

MEMORIAL CITY GENERAL HOSPITAL -200 beds, general full-service hospital. A non-fund-raising, work- oriented, carefully trained volunteer group called The Volunteer Service. Work is in31/2 hour shifts, five days a week. Age: 20-65. Two-hour interview, 3-day orientation-training program, fire- safety training program, all of which must be completed. No junior program. Call Mary Nolan, 461-5400.

MERCY HOSPITAL -29 beds, a general community hospital. Volunteers work with patients, many of which are Medicaids who need "follow-up" help while in the hospital. Staff volunteers seven day a week when possible. Interviewed by administrator Dr. J. B. Jones. Junior program: Candy Striper program beginning, to work at information desk, read to patients, entertain children. Call Dr. Jones' office, 733-5421. 335

RIVERSIDE GENERAL HOSPITAL -107 beds, a general community hospital. Volunteers work in the gift shop; with patients, planning their meals, arrang- ing their hair, distributing magazines; some office work. Volunteers work seven days a week; hours are flexible. Minimum age is 17; male volunteers especially encouraged. For juniors, 14 to 17: Candy Stripers are presently girls only, but boy volunteers are encouraged to apply. Call Orpha E.Boone, 526-2441.

ROSEWOOD GENERAL HOSPITAL -189 beds, a general community hospital. Auxiliary. Volunteers work at an information desk, in central supply, and in office, beauty salon, psychiatric and physical therapy units. There is an attempt to have volunteers on duty seven days a week; a shift system is used but hours can be made more flexible. Adult program: 18 minimum age. Junior program: 15 years minimum, year-around and particularly active during the summer. Call Mildred Abernathy, 782-9515.

ST. ELIZABETH'S HOSPITAL -120 beds, a general community hospital. Volunteers do some fund- raising work in connection with an auxiliary. The general work puts emphasis on patient contact. Shift system used but hours are flexible. Junior program: 14 years minimum age, year- around. Parental consent required. Call Geraldine Webster, 675-1711.

ST. LUKE'S EPISCOPAL HOSPITAL 738 beds and expanding, a general hospital. Auxiliary. Volun- teers handle patients' mail, coffee and medical- education carts for staff, information desks, international patient service (bi-lingual volunteers greatly needed), gift shop. Volunteers work in shifts, a minimum of three hours a week required. Volunteers on duty seven days a week. Help is particularly needed on Fridays and during weekends. Junior program: 15 minimum age. Call Mrs. L.C. Spiller, 521-3049. 336

ST. JOSEPH'S HOSPITAL - 769 beds, a general community hospital. Volunteers divided into two programs: "psychiatric volunteers", especially trained, staff the referral service for those seeking mental health information or aid, and the "regulars". "Regulars" are needed throughout the week in emergency, on floors, at information desks. This hospital particularly encourages men, careerists, students, and retired people to apply. Auxiliary. Four hours a week is work minimum. Junior program: 14 minimum age, summer, includes training program. If you are interested in the "regulars", call Jimmie Cobden, 225-3131. For the "psychiatric volunteers", call Jo Swanlund, 225-3131.

SMA HOUSTON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL -135 beds and expanding, a general community hospital. More than usual amount of patient contact. Volunteers also work in the emergency room, at nursing stations, reception desks. Auxiliary. Shift system used; volunteers are on duty five days a week. Adult program minimum age is 19. Junior program: 14-18, with parental consent, year-around program. Call volunteer Information Desk, 468-4311.

SHARPSTOWN GENERAL HOSPITAL -141 beds, general community hospital. Volunteers work the floor, handling lunch trays and errands for patients, assist patients to therapy,,direct gift shop and information booth. Help is especially needed weekends. Volunteers work seven days a week, in shift system. Auxiliary Junior program: 14 minimum age, parental consent, preference given to those interested in entering medical field. Call Marjorie Clendenin, 774-7611.

SOUTHMORE HOSPITAL AND CLINIC 160 beds, general community hospital. Volunteers direct information desk and gift shop, assist patients to medical appointment, handle mail, magazine, meals. Auxiliary. Adults handle Monday through Friday duties. Junior program: 15 age minimum, year- around; juniors handle weekend duties. Call Lillie Evans, 473-2811. 337

TEXAS INSTITUTE FOR REHABILITATION AND RESEARCH 64 beds with 1,750 out-patients; a special center for care and treatment of the severely disabled (spinal injury, birth defects, strokes, etc.). Auxiliary. Volunteers have much staff and patient contact. Handle shampoos, laundry, bed making, recreational trips, church trips and corner store. Volunteers organized in shifts, work seven days a week. Junior program: 15 minimum age. Year- around, heavy in summer, parental consent. Call Nita Weil, 526-4281.

TIDELANDS HOSPITAL -100 beds, a general community hospital. Volunteers handle food trays, getting patients to medical appointments, errands for patients and staff, letter writing for patients. Adults handle daytime, Monday through Friday duties. Minimum age: 19. Junior program: Candy Stripers, 15 minimum age, year-around. Call Barbara Montroy. 452-1511.

TWELVE OAKS HOSPITAL 300 beds and expanding, a general hospital. Volunteers handle patients' mail, other personal services, floor stations. Auxiliary. Staffing five days a week; a shift system but flexible. Adult program has 18-year age minimum. Male volunteers encouraged to apply. Junior program: To begin in near future. Call Debbie Self, 621-3420.

UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS M.D. ANDERSON HOSPITAL AND TUMOR INSTITUTE -300 beds and expanding to 650 in next four years, almost 700 clinic patients per day expanding to 2,100 four years; a cancer, research institute and hospital. General volunteer duties. A special need: Someone who will catalogue books and organize a library. Hours of work flexible. No formal junior program: one is planned for the future. At this time, preferred minimum age is 17. Prefer the young who are interested ina health profession. Call Cynthia Clark, 526-5411. 338

VETERANS ADMINISTRATION HOSPITAL - 1,330 beds; a general medical and surgical hospital with a large psychiatric and rehabilitation service. Volunteer work is divided into two types -that which offers much patient contact (assisting patients to and from medical appointments) or no patient contact (office work). Volunteers needed seven days a week, 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. Hours are flexible. Junior program: 15 minimum age, year-around. Call Twyla Leonard, 747-3000. MEMBERS OF THE TEXAS STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION TABLE 135 BlackHARRIS Liberal COUNTY DemocratREPRESENTATIVES TO THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION PARTY Dr. Joe Gathe REPRESENTATIVE U.S. CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT District 18 Unopposed OPPONENT ModerateConservativeIncumbent Democrat Democrat Republican JoeWilliamE. KellyM. Huggins,H.N. Butler FetterKemp Jr. District 22 879 ConservativeUnopposedRepublican JoeMiles Democrat Stevens Rutherford Carl Denson LiberalNEW MEMBERS Democrat Mrs.Duane Johnnie J. Mc MarieCullough Grimes District 1014 5 Unopposed MexicanDemocratModerateDemocratLiberal Amer. DemocratDemocrat Democrat GlenMrs.OmarCarlisleJames JaneL. Garza, N.Smith WellsCravensBinion M.D. DistrictDistrict 17 152411 RazaUnopposedRepublican Unida AbelJamesJohnMrs. P. W.RosellaRominger OchoaGaribay Burchfield Mexican-Amer.Republican Democrat Mrs.Dr. StanleyRonaldAlbert B.Trevino SmithMcCaleb District 20 63 UnopposedDemocratRepublican Marvin Ralph Kress Cardenasand Raza Unida Gabriel Manzano Moderate-ConservativeDemocratINCUMBENT MEMBERS RE-ELECTED Vernon Baird District 12 Unopposed Democrat CarlGeorgePaulE. R.E. Matthews C.Gregg,Morgan Guthrie Jr. DistrictDistrict 23 241 UnopposedRepublicanUnopposedLa Raza Unida W. G.Mrs. Reinhart Marta Cotera SOURCE:ConservativeDemocratDemocrat Democrat Houston Post BenHerbertJamesFrank R. M. H. H.O. Poole Whiteside Howell,Willborn Chairman District 21161319 LiberalRepublicanUnopposed Republican Janet Parnell Bruce Bixler 340

Table 136 A Numerical and Percentage Distribution of Voters in Mayoral Campaign by Race (Houston, 1971)*

ITEM TOTAL VOTERS PERCENTAGE

Southwest 182,097 39.90

Black 119,292 26.14

Latin 22,707 4.98

Southeast 51,290 11.24

Northside 77,917 17.08

Student 3,019 .66

TOTAL 456,322 100.00

*Based on registration as of June 14, 1971. 341

Table 137 A Distribution of Predominantly Black Precincts by Presidential and Gubernatorial Candidates and Percentage Turnout (Harris County-November, 1972)

Total Total Percentage Precinct Registered Voted McGovern Nixon Briscoe Grover Turnout

7 3,479 1,860 1,310 515 1,273 359 54 19 701 287 262 20 253 23 41 20 655 316 218 92 185 81 48 21 1,330 692 666 18 606 23 52 23 754 355 319 14 299 14 47 24 2,165 1,010 920 61 903 59 47 25 2,540 1,354 1,301 21 1,242 36 53 30 1,276 736 709 17 635 43 58 31 2,430 1,548 1,497 31 1,390 48 64 42 6,526 3,472 3,317 100 2,885 142 53 47 2,637 1,443 1,374 40 1,251 49 55 48 1,257 762 719 23 697 22 61 53 1,435 822 368 430 399 331 57 68 2,887 1,739 1,669 40 1,551 53 60 85 1,905 1,127 1,086 33 974 76 59 104 3,264 1,843 1,243 564 1,208 473 57 107 1,802 1,060 637 391 644 304 59 109 2,235 1,169 1,118 38 1,031 48 52 115 2,399 1,442 464 916 662 676 60 122 2,156 1,333 876 429 864 336 62 132 4,403 2,628 2,256 344 1,968 377 60 136 3,484 1,992 1,889 82 1,566 141 57 138 2,094 1,131 1,073 31 1,022 39 54 140 2,827 1,711 1,481 203 1,183 252 61 144 2,099 1,234 1,159 43 1,028 68 59 145 2,894 1,772 1,575 156 1,458 150 61 147 3,704 2,578 488 2,047 632 1,835 70 151 2,619 1,594 1,366 193 1,235 196 61 156 2,353 1,530 1,258 254 1,035 272 65 157 2,455 1,356 1,298 33 1,186 51 55 158 2,740 1,665 1,613 26 1,482 47 61 159 1,334 917 883 24 841 25 69 160 1,281 733 665 37 637 32 57 161 2,442 1,382 1,306 41 1,200 57 57 164 2,146 1,420 1,377 30 1,276 44 66 167 232 168 146 7 134 9 72 168 1,354 738 698 32 644 38 55 169 1,397 788 651 26 667 38 56 Table 137 A Distribution of Predominantly Black Precincts by Presidential and Gubernatorial Candidates and Percentage Turnout (Cont.) (Harris County-November, 1972)

Total Total Percentage Precinct Registered Voted McGovern Nixon Briscoe Grover Turnout

171 1,351 800 391 394 429 297 59 180 3,388 2,034 1,845 147 1,673 160 60 186 2,188 1,271 1,161 69 1,081 73 58 192 1,621 1,107 1,050 35 936 62 68 193 1,805 1,093 1,048 27 950 40 61 194 2,778 1,555 1,125 410 896 390 56 195 2,790 1,683 1,603 50 1,430 75 60 196 1,376 847 745 83 604 64 62 197 2,615 1,566 1,490 43 1,357 70 60 198 1,451 874 829 33 757 32 60 201 1,827 1,051 955 12 840 50 58 202 1,808 1,059 998 35 909 50 59 209 721 410 392 13 357 21 57 210 2,343 1,338 1,252 67 1,115 83 57 212 2,258 1,308 1,192 86 1,089 87 58 219 3,030 1,789 1,497 362 1,231 361 59 228 901 624 502 117 420 131 69 230 3,171 1,932 1,844 55 1,686 82 61 235 3,618 2,162 1,811 306 1,537 328 60 236 1,751 1,067 894 157 812 154 61 237 2,015 1,160 1,036 105 922 107 58 238 2,689 1,524 1,244 254 1,102 249 57 239 2,21 1,415 1,196 195 1,062 203 63 240 2,988 1,949 1,875 43 1,707 86 65 247 3,129 1,686 1,604 33 1,472 62 54 248 334 214 200 12 191 14 64 250 924 666 640 19 603 30 72 251 1,595 983 888 85 853 84 62 252 3,801 2,502 2,119 149 1,917 193 66 253 2,848 1,805 1,729 42 1,670 38 63 259 3,196 2,321 2,137 122 1,985 143 73 271 1,687 1,231 1,197 23 1,036 80 73 276 2,145 1,312 1,173 112 1,085 107 61 288 2,375 1,566 1,349 155 1,200 160 66 294 1,696 1,123 1,094 15 979 42 66 295 1,706 1,065 1,027 23 956 34 62 318 2,523 1,722 1,055 634 924 565 68 327 1,906 1,131 1,100 20 1,008 42 59 343

Table 137 A Distribution of Predominantly Black Precincts by Presidential and Gubernatorial Candidates and Percentage Turnout (Cont.) (Harris County-November, 1972)

Total Total Percentage Precinct Registered Voted McGovern Nixon Briscoe Grover Turnout

334 241 145 133 5 122 9 60 340 842 512 449 45 414 48 61 342 49 No Returns 344 1,599 899 843 40 768 46 56 355 848 541 459 71 413 76 64 357 740 421 385 18 347 22 57 365 626 494 97 385 134 332 79 367 975 607 581 21 517 36 62 368 19 7 4 3 5 2 37 369 532 277 187 66 159 13 52 371 1,285 702 358 333 382 267 55 372 741 328 217 8 306 7 44

373 103 73 72 1 63 2 71 389 2,011 1,176 831 326 507 290 59 390 1,598 1,075 760 298 553 250 67 392 2,421 1,631 1,552 52 1,375 88 67 396 1,794 1,212 1,171 30 1,008 65 68 402 352 279 206 70 190 47 79

TOTAL 185,066 111,031 94,857 13,721 86,190 13,316 60 344

Table 138 A Distribution of Voters in Predominantly Black Precincts by Total Registered, Candidate, and Percentage Turnout (November and December, 1971)

Registered Total Vote Percentage Hofheinz Welch Precinct Vote Turnout 12-07 11-20 12-07 11-20 12-07 11-20 12-07

19 557 184 246 44 154 217 16 20 20 528 158 216 41 81 143 59 73 21 1,012 475 556 55 424 538 36 18 23 763 264 320 42 231 301 22 19 24 1,631 699 892 55 598 834 66 58 25 2,019 978 1,204 60 858 1,171 39 33 30 1,175 487 628 53 433 595 31 33 31 2,029 1,078 1,324 65 1,008 1,300 50 24 42 2,327 1,257 1,601 69 1,111 1,535 85 66 47 2,142 928 1,190 56 821 1,164 73 26 48 1,208 564 711 59 521 682 30 29 68 2,352 1,065 1,405 60 930 1,355 79 50 85 1,463 824 966 66 751 944 44 22 109 1,779 256 510 29 217 497 24 13 122 1,480 666 867 59 324 445 293 422 132 2,651 1,415 1,650 62 1,137 1,402 199 248 136 2,742 1,403 1,698 62 1,281 1,647 75 51 138 1,725 762 1,101 64 695 1,059 21 42 140 2,627 1,247 1,505 57 1,023 1,331 153 174 la4 3,087 1,336 1,785 58 1,115 1,706 207 79 145 2,659 1,226 1,515 57 982 1,311 166 204 151 2,040 904 1,150 56 686 953 160 197 156 2,036 1,083 1,258 62 824 1,017 183 241 157 571 1,036 446 969 87 67 158 2,474 1,152 1,441 58 1,023 1,413 64 28 159 2,096 865 1,139 54 724 1,074 97 65 160 901 425 556 62 355 520 43 36 161 2,260 995 1,319 58 754 1,270 68 49 164 1,809 1,060 1,541 85 896 1,197 96 44 167 1,506 634 883 59 538 824 62 59 168 1,114 438 583 52 326 538 91 45 169 - 180 2,525 1,222 1,532 61 1,004 1,383 151 149 186 2,547 1,237 1,621 64 1,063 1,477 116 144 192 2,853 1,410 1,748 61 1,213 1,661 107 87 193 1,611 810 1,005 62 738 973 46 32 194 2,085 957 1,216 58 679 990 200 226 195 1,871 933 1,138 61 809 1,073 77 65 345

Table 138 A Distribution of Voters in Predominantly Black Precincts by Total Registered, Candidate, and Percentage Turnout (Cont.) (November and December, 1971)

Registered Total Vote Percentage Hofheinz Welch Precinct Vote Turnout 12-07 11-20 12-07 11-20 12-07 11-20 12-07

196 1,339 576 737 55 408 670 65 67 197 719 961 - 598 927 65 34 198 1,175 590 737 63 527 704 35 33 201 1,518 689 883 58 550 824 92 59 202 2,377 1,069 1,352 57 930 1,302 88 50 209 1,118 456 624 56 401 601 30 23 210 1,718 808 1,002 58 734 973 46 29 212 1,799 752 1,035 58 646 943 64 92 219 1,931 946 1,168 60 815 1,074 101 94 228 3,416 1,697 2,028 59 1,290 1,720 245 308 230 2,381 1,092 1,532 64 926 1,452 98 80 235 2,578 1,277 1,571 61 990 1,321 193 250 236 1,764 725 992 56 553 815 128 177 237 1,963 726 993 51 570 862 105 131 238 1,775 694 851 48 429 600 180 251 239 1,776 680 866 49 466 635 163 231 240 2,261 1,315 1,616 71 1,173 1,567 72 49 247 2,386 1,187 1,472 62 1,088 1,442 49 30 252 4,322 2,210 2,826 65 1,935 2,646 176 180 253 2,304 1,265 1,532 66 918 1,381 262 151 259 2,608 1,816 1,988 76 1,596 1,936 98 52 271 1,525 942 1,121 ;4 863 1,093 52 28 276 1,858 715 945 51 528 801 131 144 288 1,839 924 1,148 62 780 1,008 114 140 294 1,915 2,440 - 1,761 2,398 89 42 295 1.622 729 938 58 633 896 57 42 327 1,709 1,277 1,612 94 1,105 1,554 79 58

TOTALS 122,240 59,759 75,726 62 49,985 69,654 6,293 6,072 346

Table 139 A Percentage Distribution of Predominantly Mexican-American Precincts by Presidential and Gubernatorial Candidates and Percentage Turnout (Harris County, November, 1972)

Total Total Percentage Precinct Registered Voted McGovern Nixon Briscoe Grover Turnout

2 588 341 256 73 205 58 58

9 1,409 621 468 120 344 77 44

10 1,619 838 513 301 386 214 52

11 1,330 729 411 288 349 227 55

46 2,228 1,142 738 362 568 258 51

64 2,101 1,050 669 344 477 226 50

65 2,233 1,108 711 340 558 216 50

69 2,376 1,157 672 443 576 288 49

79 5,222 2,512 1,681 740 1,341 514 48

187 419 218 143 74 105 40 52

401 64 48 36 9 28 8 75

66 1,759 910 603 285 557 202 52

77 236 150 66 84 70 59 64

62 2,012 1,013 644 339 560 231 50 347

Table 140 A Distribution of Predominantly Mexican-American Precincts in Mayoral Campaign (Houston, Texas, 1971)

Precinct Number of Total Percentage No. Registered Voters Voted Hofheinz Welch Castillo Turnout

1 1417 Houston Ave. 1,060 554 414 139 356 52

2 901 Henderson 713 317 220 96 200 45

9 Sampson & Preston 1,144 423 225 187 358 37

10 4401 Lovejoy 1,876 890 327 560 489 47

11 5000 Harrisburg 1,096 519 204 310 300 47

44 2101 South Street 1,177 485 231 253 360 41

46 1200 Quitman 2,153 1,026 590 423 744 48

62 6400 Market 1,775 889 382 505 544 i" -50-1

j 64 7301 Ave. F 1,454 734 308 417 531 -- 51

65 907 76th St. 1,635 800 382 416 588 49

66 801 Broadway 1,559 643 364 277 417 - 41

69 6901 Ave. I 1,636 799 290 507 436 49

77 3725 Fulton 1,093 648 215 432 363 59

79 6411 Laredo 2,731 1,312 598 713 836 48

107 2310 Berry Rd. 1,605 968 448 415 402 60

TOTALS 22,707 11,007 5,198 5,560 5,521 49 348

TABLE 141 A DISTRIBUTION OF REVENUE SHARING ALLOCATION*

Revenue Sharing 1970 Per Capita County Allocation Population Payment

Harris County $5,933,840 1,741,912 $3.40

Baytown $399,730 43,980 $9.08 Bellaire $112,734 19,009 $5.93 Bunker Hill Village $11,389 3,977 $2.86 Deer Park $155,036 12,773 $12.13 El Lago $7,317 1,011 $7.23 Galena Park $76,300 10,479 $7.28 Hedwig Village $10,933 3,255 $3.35 Hillshire Village $1,783 627 $2.84 Houston $14,566,091 1,232,802 $11.81 Humble $21,217 3,278 $6.47 Hunter's Creek Village $11,366 3,959 $2.87 Jacinto City $28,704 9,563 $3.00 Jersey Village $5,442 765 $7.11 Katy $35,442 2,923 $12.12 La Porte $76,969 7,149 $10.76 Lomax $3,027 894 $3.42 Morgans Point $4,230 593 $7.13 Nassau Bay $39,721 4,586 $8.66 Pasadena $749,422 89,277 $8.39 Piney Point $7,297 2,548 $2.86 Seabrook $28,341 3,811 $7.43 Shoreacres $7,301 1,872 $3.90 South Houston $105,158 11,527 $9.12 Southside Place $8,869 1,466 $6.04 Spring Valley $9,079 3,170 $2.86 Tomball $34,803 2,734 $12.72 Waller $8,176 1,123 $7.28 Webster $6,390 2,231 $2.86 West University Place $47,638 13,318 $3.57

Galveston County $964,384 169,812 $5.67

Clear Lake Shores $2,065 600 $3.44 Friendswood $18,681 5,675 $3.29 Galveston $701,676 61,809 $11.35 Hitchcock $35,838 5,565 $6.43 Kemah $11,236 1,144 $9.82 La Marque $87,811 16,131 $5.44 League City $62,991 10,818 $5.82 Texas City $514,537 38,908 $13.22

*Source: The Houston Post, Feb. 4, 1973, p. 7/DD. 349

TABLE 141 A Distribution of Revenue Sharing Allocation (Cont'd.)

Revenue Sharing 1970 Per Capita County Allocation Population Payment

Montgomery County $293,218 49,479 $5.92

Conroe $184,625 11,969 $16.42 Cut 'n Shoot $753 200 $3.76 New Waverly $1,015 496 $2.04 Magnolia $1,315 261 $5.03 Montgomery $900 216 $4.16 Patton Village $5,971 667 $8.95 Willis $6,839 1,577 $4.33

Fort Bend County $488,221 52,314 $9.33

Missouri City $25,421 4,136 $6.14 Needville $9,860 1,024 $9.62 Richmond $79,681 5,777 $13.79 Rosenberg $169,140 12,098 $13.98 Stafford $25,941 2,906 $8.92 Sugarland $31,210 3,318 $9.40

Brazoria County $942,144 108,312 $8.69

Alvin $89,589 10,671 $8.30 Pearland $59,607 6,444 $9.25 Freeport $160,160 11,997 $13.35 Angleton $59,980 9,770 $6.13 350

TABLE 142 AMOUNT OF MONEY RECEIVED IN THE FIRST INSTALLMENT OF REVENUE SHARING

New York, N. Y. $100,847,538 Wichita, Kan. $ 1,298,873 Chicago, Ill. 31,185,549 Akron, Ohio 1,758,408 Los Angeles, Calif. 15,781,264 Baton Rouge, La. 3,344,955 Philadelphia, Pa. 21,981,080 Tucson, Ariz. 2,196,405 Detroit, Mich. 18,302,265 Jersey City, N. J. 2,308,548 HOUSTON, TEX. 7,433,362 Sacramento, Calif. 1,634,562 Baltimore, Md. 11,831,968 Austin, Tex. 1,435,048 Dallas, Tex. 5,795,317 Richmond, Va. 2,728,602 Washington, D.C. 11,834,502 Albuquerque, N. M. 2,987,831 Cleveland, Ohio 7,214,134 Dayton, Ohio 2,100,342 Indianapolis, Inc. 5,482,887 Charlotte, N. C. 2,036,693 Milwaukee, Wis. 5,539,902 St. Petersburg, Fla. 1,442,116 San Francisco, Calif. 8,833,517 Corpus Christi, Tex. 1,576,903 San Diego, Calif. 3,132,436 Yonkers, N. Y. 871,670 San Antonio, Tex. 4,242,612 Des Moines, Iowa 1,112,067 EJston, Mass. 8,904,129 Grand Rapids, Mich. 1,536,001 Honolulu, Hawaii 6,933,488 Syracuse, N. Y. 685,245 Memphis, Tenn. 4,411,281 Flint, Mich. 1,748,127 St. Louis, Mo. 6,251,132 Mobile, Ala. 2,223,062 New Orleans, La. 8,488,471 Shreveport, La. 1,870,163 Phoenix, Ariz. 3,785,490 Warren, Mich. 1,088,691 Columbus, Ohio 3,267,245 Providence, R. I. 2,180,442 Seattle, Wash. 4,162,054 Fort Wayne, Ind. 1,089,938 Jacksonville, Fla. 4,014,785 Worcester, Mass. 2,081,363 Pittsburgh, Pa. 5,862,963 Salt Lake City, Utah 1,796,588 Denver, Colo. 5,915,173 Gary, Ind. 1,566,433 Kansas City,Mo. 4,603,544 Knoxville, Tenn. 1,755,005 Atlanta, Ga. 3,042,473 Virginia Beach, Va. 1,882,720 Buffalo, N. Y. 3,348,729 Madison, Wis. 899,799 Cincinnati, Ohio 4,132,782 Spokane, Wash. 1,171,238 San Jose, Calif. 2,084,882 Kansas City, Kan. 1,139,113 Minneapolis, Minn. 2,792,508 Columbus, Ga. 1,440,706 Nashville-Davidson, Tenn. 3,534,501 Anaheim, Calif. 583,416 Fort Worth, Tex. 2,277,266 Fresno, Calif. 1,386,104 Toledo, Ohio 2,293,844 Springfield, Mass. 1,482,094 Portland, Ore. 4,169,841 Hartford, Conn. 1,676,227 Newark, N. J. 4,246,878 Bridgeport, Conn. 1,660,580 Oklahoma, Okla. 2,731,487 Santa Ana, Calif. 745,345 Louisville, Ky. 4,674,030 Tacoma, Wash. 1,688,493 Oakland, Calif. 2,304,154 Jackson, Miss. 1,794,388 Long Beach, Calif. 1,517,152 Lincoln, Neb. 846,927 Omaha, Neb. 2,036,844 Lubbock, Tex. 953,111 Miami, Fla. 3,289,574 Rockford, Ill. 900,163 Tulsa, Okla. 2,129,832 Paterson, N.J. 1,226,381 El Paso, Tex. 2,711,743 Greensboro, N. C. 1,541,919 St. Paul, Minn. 2,122,552 Riverside, Calif. 596,711 Norfolk, Va. 3,368,770 Youngstown, Ohio 1,109,316 Birmingham, Ala. 2,486,792 Fort Lauderdale, Fla. 708,623 Rochester, N.Y. 1,145,117 Huntsville, Ala. 842,015 Tampa, Fla. 2,618,590 Evansville, Ind. 1,091,887 SOURCE: The Houston Post,December 9, 1972,p.11/A. 351

TABLE 143 REVENUE PAYOUT BY STATES

STATE LOCAL

Alabama $14,946,087 $ 29,851,298 Alaska 1,093,303 1,880,218 Arizona 8,287,130 15,639,262 Arkansas 9,710,377 17,242,515 California 92,443,559 184,712,996 Colorado 8,995,692 17,944,197 Connecticut 11,091,526 22,179,987 Delaware 3,147,459 4,791,930 District of Columbia 11,834,502 Florida 24,206,688 48,395,859 Georgia 18,092,339 36,140,362 Hawaii 3,910,786 7,821,571 Idaho 3,512,063 6,963,658 Illinois 45,211,408 89,970,805 Indiana 18,775,478 37,393,646 Iowa 12,457,786 24,895,557 Kansas 8,653,771 17,141,396 Kentucky 17,187,143 25,818,544 Louisiana 20,410,021 40,213,387 Maine 5,122,554 10,164,495 Maryland 17,671,768 35,334,416 Massachusetts '6.7,243,635 54,474,105 Michigan 37,033,515 73,862,622 Minnesota 17,560,612 34,835,716 Mississippi 14,746,765 29,012,902 Missouri 16,216,930 32,227,223 Montana 3,381,910 6,465,610 Nebraska 6,413,617 12,742,336 Nevada 1,889,970 3,768,024 New Hampshire 2,737,367 5,430,368 New Jersey 27,496,318 54,984,447 New Mexico 5,680,902 9,837,989 New York 97,177,125 194,104,226 North Carolina 22,442,129 44,787,299 North Dakota 3,659,188 7,046,872 Ohio 35,300,397 70,373,249 Oklahoma 9,723,562 19,378,933 Oregon 8,747,782 17,447,383 Pennsylvania 45,862,531 91,359,636 Rhode Island 3,986,659 7,973,337 South Carolina 12,165,341 23,504,044 South Dakota 3,981,456 7,668,617 Tennessee 16,310,721 32,605,795 Texas 40,958,303 81,722,265 Utah 5,047,673 9,992,880 Vermont 2,428,891 3,759,333 Virginia 17,546,071 35,082,556 Washington 12,864,706 25,583,591 West Virginia 11,503,557 14,816,000 Wisconsin 21,987,547 43,748,807 Wyoming 1,644,864 3,235,396

Source: Washington (UPI) news release. 352

APPENDIX B

SPECIAL REFERENCES AND SOURCE MATERIALS

I. GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS

Criminal Justice Plan for Texas. 1972 and 1973.

Office of Information Services. Summary of Selected Demographic Characteristics From Census Data-Fourth Count. Austin: Office of the Governor of Texas, ig72.

United States Department of Commerce. BLS Report No. 394. The Social and Economic Status of Negroe:-. in the United States.

United States Office of Education. Report of the National Advisory Committee on Mexican-American Education. The Mexican-American: The Ouest for Equality. 1968.

United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Regional Report Series #1. February, 1970. Poverty in Houston's Central City.

United States Department of Labor. Bulletin S-3. October, 1960. The Economic Situation of Negroes in the United States.

United States Department of Labor. Manpower Research Monograph No. 23. Negro Employment in the South. 1971.

United States Bureau of the Census. Final Report HC (2)-91, HouSton, Texas SMSA. Census of Housing: 1970, Metropolitan Housing Characteristics.

United States Bureau of the Census. Final Report PHC (1)-89, Houston, Texas SMSA. Census of Population and Housing: 1970, Census Tracts.

United States Bureau of the Census. Final Report PC (1)-C45, Texas. Census of Population: 1970, General Socio-Economic Characteristics. 353

II. BOOKS, PERIODICALS, AND OTHER SOURCES

"Annual Report of the Health Department, 1970-71." Houston, Texas.

"Annual Report of the Police Department, 1970-71." Houston, Texas.

Johnston, Richard J. H. "Low Income Housing Exclusions in U. S. Assailed." New York Times, November 7, 1969.

Hartman, Chester W. "The Politics of Housing." Dissent, 14 (6): 710-11.

Hawley, Willis D. Blacks and Metropolitan Governance: The Stakes of Reform. Berkeley: Institute of Governmental sTilFies, University of California, 1972.

Langendorf, Richard. "Residential Desegregation Potential." Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35 (2): 94, 1969.

Led4, Naomi W. The Negro Voter in Dallas: A Study in Political Socialization. Dallas: Center for Social Science Pesearch, 1968.

Lede, Naomi W. De Facto School Segregation in Saint Louis. Saint Louis: Urban League of Saint Louis, Inc., 1966.

Pino, Lewis N. Nothing But Praise: Thoughts on Ties Between Higher Education and the Federal Government. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1972.

Waldman, Elizabeth, "Educational Attainment of Workers."Monthly Labor Review, February, 1969, pp. 14-22.

Warren, Roland. Politics and the Ghettos. New York: Atherton Press, 1969.

"The Economics of Health Care." Black Enterprise, June, 1972.

The Texas Social Welfare Association. Proceedings of the General Session Papers, Forum, Discussions and Institutes, "The Many Faces of Poverty," November 15-18, 1964.

The Negro Handbook. Chicago: Johnson Publishing Company, 1970.